SB 649: Wireless telecommunications facilities.
- Session Year: 2017-2018
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2017-09-19
(1)Existing federal law prohibits a state or local statute, regulation, or legal requirement from prohibiting an interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, but recognizes the ability of a state to impose, on a competitively neutral basis, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determines that this prohibition has been violated, existing federal law requires the FCC to preempt the enforcement of the offending statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct the violation. Existing federal law additionally recognizes the authority of a state or local government to manage public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for the use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by that government. Existing federal law provides that no state or local government has the authority to regulate the entry of, or the rates charged by, a commercial mobile service, but permits a state to regulate the other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services.
Under existing law, the placement or installation of certain wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to a wireless telecommunications facility, as specified, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit, but certain other wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to city or county discretionary permitting and are required to comply with specified criteria.
This bill would provide that a small cell, as defined, is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an encroachment permit or a building permit, and any additional ministerial permits, for a small cell, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to charge 3 types of fees relating to these small cells: an annual charge for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure, an annual attachment rate, and a one-time reimbursement fee. The bill would require the city or county to comply with notice and hearing requirements before imposing the annual attachment rate. The bill would require an action or proceeding to challenge a fee imposed under the provisions of this bill to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. This bill would require each wireless service provider, on or before July 1, 2019, and again on or before December 31, 2020, to submit a report to the Legislature specifying the number of, and geographical location by ZIP Code of, the small cells that the wireless service provider has commenced operating within the state during the 18 months preceding the date of each report.
(2)Existing law requires a local publicly owned electric utility, as defined, to make available appropriate space and capacity on and in certain utility poles and related structures. Existing law requires fees adopted to cover the costs to provide this use, and the terms and conditions of access, to meet specified requirements, and specifies the manner in which these fees and terms and conditions of access may be challenged.
This bill would provide that it does not authorize or impose an obligation to charge a different use fee on a local publicly owned electric utility, and does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utilitys reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
(3)The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 establishes a procedure for the issuance of state franchises for the provision of video service and cable service and designates the Public Utilities Commission as the sole franchising authority for a state franchise under the act. The act requires the holder of a state franchise to pay franchise fees, as specified. The act prescribes the extent of the obligation of a holder of a state franchise to provide public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels, but authorizes a local entity, as defined, to establish a fee to support the costs of PEG channel facilities, in the amount of 1% of gross revenues, or more in specified circumstances.
This bill would prohibit a city or county from requiring a provider of video or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit not described above to provide any communications services that are provided by a provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the act. The bill would prohibit a city or county from requiring the provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by the act, this bill, or other state laws.
(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1)Existing federal law prohibits a state or local statute, regulation, or legal requirement from prohibiting an interstate or intrastate telecommunications service, but recognizes the ability of a state to impose, on a competitively neutral basis, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers. If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determines that this prohibition has been violated, existing federal law requires the FCC to preempt the enforcement of the offending statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct the violation. Existing federal law additionally recognizes the authority of a state or local government to manage public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for the use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by that government. Existing federal law provides that no state or local government has the authority to regulate the entry of, or the rates charged by, a commercial mobile service, but permits a state to regulate the other terms and conditions of commercial mobile services.
Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of certain wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, facility, as specified, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit. permit, but certain other wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to city or county discretionary permitting and are required to comply with specified criteria.
This bill would provide that a small cell cell, as defined, is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an encroachment permit or a building permit, and any additional ministerial permits, for a small cell, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to charge 3 types of fees: fees relating to these small cells: an annual charge for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure, an annual attachment rate, or and a one-time reimbursement fee. The bill would require the city or county to comply with notice and hearing requirements before imposing the annual attachment rate. The bill would require an action or proceeding to challenge a fee imposed under the provisions of this bill to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The bill would define the term small cell for these purposes. This bill would require each wireless service provider, on or before July 1, 2019, and again on or before December 31, 2020, to submit a report to the Legislature specifying the number of, and geographical location by ZIP Code of, the small cells that the wireless service provider has commenced operating within the state during the 18 months preceding the date of each report.
(2)Existing law requires a local publicly owned electric utility, as defined, to make available appropriate space and capacity on and in certain utility poles and related structures. Existing law requires fees adopted to cover the costs to provide this use, and the terms and conditions of access, to meet specified requirements, and specifies the manner in which these fees and terms and conditions of access may be challenged.
This bill would provide that it does not authorize or impose an obligation to charge a different use fee on a local publicly owned electric utility, and does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utilitys reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
The(3)The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 establishes a procedure for the issuance of state franchises for the provision of video service and cable service and designates the Public Utilities Commission as the sole franchising authority for a state franchise under the act. The act requires the holder of a state franchise to pay franchise fees, as specified. The act prescribe prescribes the extent of the obligation of a holder of a state franchise to provide public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels, but authorizes a local entity, as defined, to establish a fee to support the costs of PEG channel facilities, in the amount of 1% of gross revenues, or more in specified circumstances.
This bill would prohibit a city or county from requiring a provider of video service or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit not described above to provide any communications service services that is are provided by a holder of a state provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the act. The bill would prohibit a city or county from requiring the holder of a state franchise provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by the act, this bill, or other state laws.
The(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit.
This bill would provide that a small cell is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an encroachment permit or a building permit, and any additional ministerial permits, for a small cell, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to charge 3 types of fees: an annual charge for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure, an annual attachment rate, or a one-time reimbursement fee. The bill would require the city or county to comply with notice and hearing requirements before imposing the annual attachment rate. The bill would require an action or proceeding to challenge a fee imposed under the provisions of this bill to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The bill would define the term small cell for these purposes.
This bill would prohibit a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation on the placement or operation of a communications facility in the rights-of-way by a provider that is authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way or from regulating that service or imposing any tax, fee, or charge, except as provided in specified provisions of law or as specifically required by law.The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 establishes a procedure for the issuance of state franchises for the provision of video service and cable service and designates the Public Utilities Commission as the sole franchising authority for a state franchise under the act. The act requires the holder of a state franchise to pay franchise fees, as specified. The act prescribe the extent of the obligation of a holder of a state franchise to provide public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels, but authorizes a local entity, as defined, to establish a fee to support the costs of PEG channel facilities, in the amount of 1% of gross revenues, or more in specified circumstances.
This bill would prohibit a city or county from requiring a provider of video service or cable service to obtain any authorization or permit not described above to provide any communications service that is provided by a holder of a state franchise pursuant to the act. The bill would prohibit a city or county from requiring the holder of a state franchise to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by the act, this bill, or other state laws.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit.
This bill would provide that a small cell is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an encroachment permit or a building permit, and any additional ministerial permits, for a small cell, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to charge 3 types of fees: an annual administrative permit fee, charge for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure, an annual attachment rate, or a on-time one-time reimbursement fee. The bill would require the city or county to comply with notice and hearing requirements before imposing the annual attachment rate. The bill would require an action or proceeding to challenge a fee imposed under the provisions of this bill to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The bill would define the term small cell for these purposes.
This bill would prohibit a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation on the placement or operation of a communications facility in the rights-of-way by a provider that is authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way or from regulating that service or imposing any tax, fee, or charge, except as provided in specified provisions of law or as specifically required by law.
Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as specified.This bill would require permits for these facilities to be renewed for equivalent durations, as specified.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit.
This bill would provide that a small cell is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an encroachment permit or a building permit, and any additional ministerial permits, for a small cell, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to charge 3 types of fees: an annual administrative permit fee, an annual attachment rate, or a on-time reimbursement fee. The bill would require the city or county to comply with notice and hearing requirements before imposing the annual attachment rate. The bill would require an action or proceeding to challenge a fee imposed under the provisions of this bill to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The bill would define the term small cell for these purposes.
This bill would prohibit a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation on the placement or operation of a communications facility in the rights-of-way by a provider that is authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way or from regulating that service or imposing any tax, fee, or charge, except as provided in specified provisions of law or as specifically required by law.
Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as specified.
This bill would require permits for these facilities to be renewed for equivalent durations, as specified.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit.
This bill would provide that a small cell is a permitted use, not subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county discretionary permit, county, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an administrative permit encroachment permit or a building permit, and any additional ministerial permits, for a small cell, as specified. The bill would define the term small cell for these purposes.
Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as specified.
This bill would require permits for these facilities to be renewed for equivalent durations, as specified.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes.
This bill would provide that a small cell is a permitted use, not subject to a city or county discretionary permit, if the small cell meets specified requirements. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a city or county to require an administrative permit for small cell, as specified. The bill would define the term small cell as a particular type of telecommunications facility for these purposes.
Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as specified.
This bill would apply these prohibitions to the approval of small cell facilities as defined by this bill. require permits for these facilities to be renewed for equivalent durations, as specified.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes.
This bill would define the term small cell as a particular type of telecommunications facility for these purposes.
Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as specified.
This bill would apply these prohibitions to the approval of small cell facilities as defined by this bill.
(a)The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
(1)Reaffirms local governments historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.
(2)Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in public rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.
(3)Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small cells will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should be subject only to encroachment or building permits, or their functioning equivalents, while requiring providers to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the California Public Utilities Commissions General Order 95.
(4)Makes small cell installations on vertical infrastructure, and on property outside a public right-of-way, subject to feasible design and collocation standards, including reasonable and objective specifications regarding the appearance and location of the small cell installation.
(5)Grants providers access to locally owned vertical infrastructure located within public rights-of-way under reasonable terms and conditions.
(6)Grants providers nondiscriminatory access to property owned or controlled by a local jurisdiction that is not in a public right-of-way and is already being used for comparable purposes under similar terms and conditions.
(7)Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching communications facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally, and of an additional charge of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for small cell attachments to vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by a city or county.
(8)Permits local governments to charge permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(9)Preserves existing agreements between wireless service providers and local governments for the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure for small cell attachments.
(10)Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
(11)Limits the creation or erection of unreasonable requirements for access to public rights-of-way by communications providers, including excessive delays in negotiations and approvals for communications facilities.
(b)The Legislature further finds and declares that wireless service providers deploy small cells to areas based on demand for services regardless of the income characteristics of the areas, that this act will complement efforts to close the digital divide by creating a framework that will incentivize private industry to invest or accelerate investment in the deployment of small cells, and that this act will complement current state and federal government efforts to subsidize the deployment of broadband, including all of the following:
(1)The Federal Communications Commissions Mobility Fund II Program, a program to help expand mobile coverage across rural America and tribal lands by providing $4.5 billion in subsidies within the next 10 years.
(2)The Connect America Fund, a Federal Communications Commission program that expands access to voice and broadband services to unserved locations across the country.
(3)The California Advanced Services Fund, a program promoting, on a technologically neutral basis, the deployment of broadband infrastructure to unserved and underserved areas with a goal of providing broadband access to 98 percent of Californian households.
SEC. 2.Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.2.(a)A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1)The small cell is located in a public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
(2)The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
(3)The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
(b)(1)A city or county may require that a small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
(2)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision may be subject to the following:
(A)The same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
(B)A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commissions regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(C)A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this section may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of rescission.
(D)A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county.
(E)Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements.
(F)A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell.
(G)A condition requiring compliance with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in public rights-of-way.
(H)A condition to indemnify a city, county, or city and county, against claims brought by third parties against the city, county, or city and county, associated with the installation of a small cell.
(3)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to any of the following conditions:
(A)Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
(B)The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this section.
(C)Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller.
(4)A city or county shall not impose permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on communication cables strung between utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
(c)A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under the terms set forth in this subdivision. Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, subject to the requirements in subdivision (d), terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards. A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
(d)(1)A city or county may charge the following fees:
(A)An annual charge not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure.
(B)An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
(i)The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any.
(ii)The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate.
(iii)For purposes of this subparagraph:
(I)Annual costs of ownership means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital costs shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell.
(II)Usable space means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
(C)A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
(2)A city or county shall comply with the following before adopting or increasing the rate described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1):
(A)At least 14 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered.
(B)At least 10 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make vertical structures available for use under this section if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate.
(C)The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentations relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5).
(D)The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting described in subparagraph (C).
(3)A judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee described in this subdivision, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee. A city or county or interested person shall bring an action described in this paragraph pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4)This subdivision does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to a rate, charge, term, or condition that is different from that established pursuant to the procedures in this subdivision, provided that either party may withdraw from negotiations seeking such an agreement by written notice.
(e)A city or county shall not discriminate against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and shall make space available on property not located in public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
(f)This section does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, including Section 65964.5.
(g)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)Feasible design and collocation standards means reasonable and objective specifications concerning the physical structure, construction, location, and appearance of a small cell, provided that those specifications facilitate the installation of the small cell and may be waived by the city or county on a nondiscriminatory basis.
(2)Micro wireless facility means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches in length, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.
(3)(A)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65850.6, or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
(i)The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether an array or separate.
(ii)Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet.
(iii)The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet.
(iv)The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet.
(v)The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
(I)Electric meters and any required pedestal.
(II)Concealment elements.
(III)Any telecommunications demarcation box.
(IV)Grounding equipment.
(V)Power transfer switch.
(VI)Cutoff switch.
(VII)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
(VIII)Equipment concealed within an existing building or structure.
(B)Small cell includes a micro wireless facility.
(C)Small cell does not include the following:
(i)A wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network.
(ii)Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation.
(iii)Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.
(iv)The underlying vertical infrastructure.
(4)(A)Vertical infrastructure means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in public rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, facilities are controlled by a city or county if the city or county has the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
(5)Wireless service provider means a provider of commercial mobile radio service or commercial mobile data service, as those terms are defined in Section 20.3 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, using spectrum radio frequencies licensed to it by the Federal Communications Commission or any successor agency.
(h)Existing agreements with a wireless provider or its agent regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this section for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
(i)Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code on a local publicly owned electric utility.
(j)This section does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utilitys reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
(k)A city or county shall consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this section that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
(l)This section shall not be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code pursuant to state and federal law, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Public Utilities Commission adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code.
(m)This section shall not be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code, and shall not preclude a city or county from exercising authority granted to a local government to enforce state safety regulations.
(n)The Legislature finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
(o)On or before July 1, 2019, and again on or before December 31, 2020, each wireless service provider shall submit a report to the Legislature specifying the number of, and geographical location by ZIP Code of, the small cells that the wireless service provider has commenced operating within the state during the 18 months preceding the date of each report. In order to protect competitively sensitive information, the wireless service provider may aggregate and submit that information through a third party.
SEC. 3.Section 65964.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.5.Except as provided in Sections 65964, 65964.2, and 65850.6, or as specifically required by state law, a city or county may not require a provider of video or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit to provide any communications services that are provided by a provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 5800) of the Public Utilities Code), nor may a city or county require such a provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006.
SEC. 4.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
(a)The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
(a)(1)Reaffirms local governments historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.
(b)(2)Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the public rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.
(c)(3)Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities cells will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject only to discretionary zoning review. encroachment or building permits, or their functioning equivalents, while requiring providers to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the California Public Utilities Commissions General Order 95.
(d)Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved.(e)Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis.(4)Makes small cell installations on vertical infrastructure, and on property outside a public right-of-way, subject to feasible design and collocation standards, including reasonable and objective specifications regarding the appearance and location of the small cell installation.
(f)(5)Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host vertical infrastructure located within the public rights-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95. under reasonable terms and conditions.
(6)Grants providers nondiscriminatory access to property owned or controlled by a local jurisdiction that is not in a public right-of-way and is already being used for comparable purposes under similar terms and conditions.
(g)(7)Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching communications facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally. generally, and of an additional charge of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for small cell attachments to vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by a city or county.
(h)(8)Permits local governments to charge permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(9)Preserves existing agreements between wireless service providers and local governments for the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure for small cell attachments.
(i)(10)Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
(j)(11)Limits the creation or erection of any unreasonable requirement requirements for access to the public rights-of-way by communications providers, including excessive delays in negotiations and approvals for communications facilities.
(b)The Legislature further finds and declares that wireless service providers deploy small cells to areas based on demand for services regardless of the income characteristics of the areas, that this act will complement efforts to close the digital divide by creating a framework that will incentivize private industry to invest or accelerate investment in the deployment of small cells, and that this act will complement current state and federal government efforts to subsidize the deployment of broadband, including all of the following:
(1)The Federal Communications Commissions Mobility Fund II Program, a program to help expand mobile coverage across rural America and tribal lands by providing $4.5 billion in subsidies within the next 10 years.
(2)The Connect America Fund, a Federal Communications Commission program that expands access to voice and broadband services to unserved locations across the country.
(3)The California Advanced Services Fund, a program promoting, on a technologically neutral basis, the deployment of broadband infrastructure to unserved and underserved areas with a goal of providing broadband access to 98 percent of Californian households.
SEC. 2.Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.2.(a)A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1)The small cell is located in the a public rights-of-way right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
(2)The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
(3)The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
(b)(1)A city or county may require that the a small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
(2)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision may be subject to the following:
(A)The same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
(B)A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commissions regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(C)A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this section may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of rescission.
(D)A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county.
(E)Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements.
(F)A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell.
(G)A condition to comply requiring compliance with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the public rights-of-way.
(H)A condition to indemnify a city, county, or city and county, against claims brought by third parties against the city, county, or city and county, associated with the installation of a small cell.
(3)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to: to any of the following conditions:
(A)Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
(B)The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this section.
(C)Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller.
(4)A city or county shall not impose permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on communication cables strung between utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
(c)A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under the terms set forth in this subdivision. Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, subject to the requirements in subdivision (d), terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards. A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
(d)(1)A city or county may charge the following fees:
(A)An annual charge not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure.
(B)An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
(i)The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any.
(ii)The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate.
(iii)For purposes of this subparagraph:
(I)Annual costs of ownership means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital costs shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell.
(II)Usable space means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
(C)A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
(2)A city or county shall comply with the following before adopting or increasing the rate described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1):
(A)At least 14 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered.
(B)At least 10 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make vertical structures available for use under this section if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate.
(C)The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentations relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950.5) 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5).
(D)The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting described in subparagraph (C).
(3)A judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee described in this subdivision, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee. A city or county or interested person shall bring an action described in this paragraph pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4)This subdivision does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual charge or attachment rate a rate, charge, term, or condition that is different from the fees or rates that established above. pursuant to the procedures in this subdivision, provided that either party may withdraw from negotiations seeking such an agreement by written notice.
(e)A city or county shall not discriminate against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and shall make space available on property not located in the public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
(f)This section does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, including Section 65964.5.
(g)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)Feasible design and collocation standards means reasonable and objective specifications concerning the physical structure, construction, location, and appearance of a small cell, provided that those specifications facilitate the installation of the small cell and may be waived by the city or county on a nondiscriminatory basis.
(1)(2)Micro wireless facility means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches long, in length, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.
(2)(3)(A)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65850.6, or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
(i)The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether an array or separate.
(ii)Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet.
(iii)The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet.
(iv)The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet.
(v)The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
(I)Electric meters and any required pedestal.
(II)Concealment elements.
(III)Any telecommunications demarcation box.
(IV)Grounding equipment.
(V)Power transfer switch.
(VI)Cutoff switch.
(VII)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
(VIII)Equipment concealed within an existing building or structure.
(B)Small cell includes a micro wireless facility.
(C)Small cell does not include the following:
(i)Wireline A wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network.
(ii)Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation.
(iii)Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.
(iv)The underlying vertical infrastructure.
(3)(4)(A)Vertical infrastructure means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, the term facilities are controlled means having by a city or county if the city or county has the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
(5)Wireless service provider means a provider of commercial mobile radio service or commercial mobile data service, as those terms are defined in Section 20.3 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, using spectrum radio frequencies licensed to it by the Federal Communications Commission or any successor agency.
(h)Existing agreements with a wireless provider or its agent regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this section for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
(i)Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code on a local publicly owned electric utility.
(j)This section does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utilitys reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
(k)A city or county shall consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this section that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
(l)Nothing in this This section shall not be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code pursuant to state and federal law, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Public Utilities Commission adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code.
(m)Nothing in this This section shall not be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code Code, and shall not preclude a city or county from exercising authority granted to a local government to enforce state safety regulations.
(n)The Legislature finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
(o)On or before July 1, 2019, and again on or before December 31, 2020, each wireless service provider shall submit a report to the Legislature specifying the number of, and geographical location by ZIP Code of, the small cells that the wireless service provider has commenced operating within the state during the 18 months preceding the date of each report. In order to protect competitively sensitive information, the wireless service provider may aggregate and submit that information through a third party.
SEC. 3.Section 65964.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.5.Except as provided in Sections 65964, 65964.2, and 65850.6, or as specifically required by state law, a city or county may not require a provider of video service or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit to provide any communications service services that is are provided by a holder of a state provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 5800) of the Public Utilities Code), nor may a city or county require the holder of a state franchise such a provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006.
SEC. 4.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
(a)Reaffirms local governments historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.
(b)Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.
(c)Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review.
(d)Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved.
(e)Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis.
(f)Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public rights-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95.
(g)Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless communications facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally.
(h)Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(i)Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
(j)Limits the creation or erection of any unreasonable requirement for access to the public rights-of-way by communications providers, including excessive delays in negotiations and approvals for communications facilities.
SEC. 2.Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.2.(a)A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1)The small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
(2)The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
(3)The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
(b)(1)A city or county may require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
(2)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision may be subject to the following:
(A)The same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
(B)A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commissions regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(C)A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this section may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of rescission.
(D)A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county.
(E)Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements.
(F)A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell.
(G)A condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the rights-of-way.
(3)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to:
(A)Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
(B)The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this section.
(C)Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller.
(D)The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.(4)Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a A city or county shall not impose permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on communication cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
(c)A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under the terms set forth in this subdivision. Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, subject to the requirements in subdivision (d), terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards. A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
(d)(1)A city or county may charge the following fees:
(A)An annual charge not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure.
(B)An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
(i)The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any.
(ii)The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate.
(iii)For purposes of this subparagraph:
(I)Annual costs of ownership means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital costs shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell.
(II)Usable space means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
(C)A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
(2)A city or county shall comply with the following before adopting or increasing the rate described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1):
(A)At least 14 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered.
(B)At least 10 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make vertical structures available for use under this section if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate.
(C)The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentations relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950.5) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5).
(D)The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting described in subparagraph (C).
(3)A judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee described in this subdivision, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee. A city or county or interested person shall bring an action described in this paragraph pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4)This subdivision does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual charge or attachment rate that is different from the fees or rates established above.
(e)A city or county shall not discriminate against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and shall make space available on property not located in the public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
(f)This section does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, including Section 65964.5.
(g)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)Micro wireless facility means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.
(2)(A)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65850.6, or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
(i)The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether an array or separate.
(ii)Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet.
(iii)The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet.
(iv)The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet.
(v)The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
(I)Electric meters and any required pedestal.
(II)Concealment elements.
(III)Any telecommunications demarcation box.
(IV)Grounding equipment.
(V)Power transfer switch.
(VI)Cutoff switch.
(VII)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
(VIII)Equipment concealed within an existing building or structure.
(B)Small cell includes a micro wireless facility.
(C)Small cell does not include the following:
(i)Wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network.
(ii)Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation.
(iii)Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.
(iv)The underlying vertical infrastructure.
(3)(A)Vertical infrastructure means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, the term controlled means having the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
(h)Existing agreements regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this section for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
(i)Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code on a local publicly owned electric utility.
(j)This section does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utilitys reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
(k)A city or county shall consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this section that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
(l)Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code pursuant to state and federal law, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Public Utilities Commission adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code.
(m)Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code
(n)The Legislature finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
SEC. 3.Section 65964.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.5.Except as provided in Sections 65964, 65964.2, and 65850.6, or as specifically required by state law, a city or county may not adopt or enforce any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and may not regulate any communications services or impose or collect any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law. require a provider of video service or cable service to obtain any authorization or permit to provide any communications service that is provided by a holder of a state franchise pursuant to the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 5800) of the Public Utilities Code), nor may a city or county require the holder of a state franchise to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006.
SEC. 4.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
(a)Reaffirms local governments historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.
(b)Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.
(c)Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review.
(d)Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved.
(e)Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis.
(f)Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public rights-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95.
(g)Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally.
(h)Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(i)Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
SEC. 2.Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended to read:65964.As a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of the following:(a)Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost of removal.(b)Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may establish a build-out period for a site. A permit shall be renewed for equivalent durations unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.(c)Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county.SEC. 3.SEC. 2.Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.2.(a)A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1)The small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
(2)The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
(3)The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
(b)(1)A city or county may require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
(2)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision may be subject to the following:
(A)The same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
(B)A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commissions regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(C)A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this section may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of rescission.
(D)A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county.
(E)Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements.
(F)A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell.
(G)A condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the rights-of-way.
(3)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to:
(A)Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
(B)The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this section.
(C)Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller.
(D)The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
(4)Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a city or county shall not impose permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
(c)A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under the terms set forth in this subdivision. Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, subject to the requirements in subdivision (d), terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards. A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
(d)(1)A city or county may charge the following fees:
(A)An annual administrative permit fee charge not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure.
(B)An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
(i)The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any.
(ii)The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate.
(iii)For purposes of this subparagraph:
(I)Annual costs of ownership means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital costs shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell.
(II)Usable space means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
(C)A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
(2)A city or county shall comply with the following before adopting or increasing the rate described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1):
(A)At least 14 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered.
(B)At least 10 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make vertical structures available for use under this section if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate.
(C)The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentations relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950.5) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5).
(D)The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting described in subparagraph (C).
(3)A judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee described in this subdivision, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee. A city or county or interested person shall bring an action described in this paragraph pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4)This subdivision does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual administrative permit fee charge or attachment rate that is less than different from the fees or rates established above.
(e)A city or county shall not discriminate against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and shall make space available on property not located in the public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
(f)This section does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, including Section 65964.5.
(g)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)Micro wireless facility means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.
(2)(A)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65850.6, or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
(i)The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether an array or separate.
(ii)Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet.
(iii)The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet.
(iv)The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet.
(v)The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
(I)Electric meters and any required pedestal.
(II)Concealment elements.
(III)Any telecommunications demarcation box.
(IV)Grounding equipment.
(V)Power transfer switch.
(VI)Cutoff switch.
(VII)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
(VIII)Equipment concealed within an existing building or structure.
(B)Small cell includes a micro wireless facility.
(C)Small cell does not include the following:
(i)Wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network.
(ii)Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation.
(iii)Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.
(iv)The underlying vertical infrastructure.
(3)(A)Vertical infrastructure means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, the term controlled means having the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
(h)Existing agreements between a wireless service provider, or its agents and assigns, and a city, a county, or a city or countys agents and assigns, regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination or other provisions in the existing agreement, or unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties. A wireless service provider may require the rates of this section for new small cells sites that are deployed after the operative date of this section in accordance with applicable change of law provisions in the existing agreements. provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this section for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
(i)Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code on a local publicly owned electric utility.
(j)This section does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utilitys reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
(k)A city or county shall consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this section that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
(l)Except as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b), nothing Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code pursuant to state and federal law, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Public Utility Utilities Commission adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code.
(m)Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code
(n)The Legislature finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
SEC. 4.SEC. 3.Section 65964.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.5.Except as provided in Sections 65964, 65964.2, and 65850.6, or as specifically required by state law, a city or county may not adopt or enforce any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and may not regulate any communications services or impose or collect any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law.
SEC. 5.SEC. 4.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced wireless communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
(a)Reaffirms local governments historic role and authority with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.
(b)Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.
(c)Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review.
(d)Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved.
(e)Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis.
(f)Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public right-of-way rights-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95.
(g)Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally.
(h)Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(i)Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
SEC. 2.Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended to read:65964.As a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of the following:
(a)Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost of removal.
(b)Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may establish a build-out period for a site. A permit shall be renewed for an equivalent duration durations unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
(c)Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county.
SEC. 3.Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.2.(a)A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1)The small cell is located in the public right-of-way rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
(2)The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
(3)The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
(b)(1)A city or county may require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public right-of-way rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
(2)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision may be subject to the following:
(A)The same administrative permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
(B)A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commissions regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(C)A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this section may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of recision. rescission.
(D)A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county.
(E)Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements.
(F)A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell.
(G)A condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the right-of-way. rights-of-way.
(3)Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to:
(A)Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
(B)The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this section.
(C)Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller.
(D)The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
(4)Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a city or county shall not impose permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
(c)A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public right-of-way rights-of-way or public utility easements under the terms set forth in this paragraph. subdivision. Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, subject to the requirements in subdivision (d), terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards. A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses. Fees shall be tiered or flat and within a range of $100 to $850 per small cell per year, indexed for inflation from the effective date of this section.
(d)(1)A city or county may charge the following fees:
(A)An annual administrative permit fee not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure.
(B)An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
(i)The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any.
(ii)The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate.
(iii)For purposes of this subparagraph:
(I)Annual costs of ownership means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital costs shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell.
(II)Usable space means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
(C)A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
(2)A city or county shall comply with the following before adopting or increasing the rate described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1):
(A)At least 14 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered.
(B)At least 10 days before the hearing described in subparagraph (C), the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make vertical structures available for use under this section if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate.
(C)The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentations relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950.5) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5).
(D)The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting described in subparagraph (C).
(3)A judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee described in this subdivision, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee. A city or county or interested person shall bring an action described in this paragraph pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(4)This subdivision does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual administrative permit fee or attachment rate that is less than the fees or rates established above.
(d)(e)A city or county shall not discriminate against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and shall make space available on property not located in the public right-of-way rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to(f)This section does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law. law, including Section 65964.5.
(f)(g)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)Micro wireless facility means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.
(1)(2)(A)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65850.6, using or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
(i)All antennas The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether in a single an array or separate.
(ii)(I)The associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet provided that any individual piece of associated equipment or pole structures do not exceed nine cubic feet.(ii)Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet.
(iii)The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet.
(iv)The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet.
(II)(v)The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
(ia)(I)Electric meters and any required pedestal.
(ib)(II)Concealment elements.
(ic)(III)Any telecommunications demarcation box.
(id)(IV)Grounding equipment.
(ie)(V)Power transfer switch.
(if)(VI)Cutoff switch.
(ig)(VII)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
(VIII)Equipment concealed within an existing building or structure.
(B)Small cell includes a micro wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches. facility.
(C)Small cell does not include either of the following:
(i)Coaxial or fiber optic cables that do not exclusively provide service to that small cell.(i)Wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network.
(ii)Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation.
(ii)(iii)Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.
(iv)The underlying vertical infrastructure.
(2)(3)(A)Vertical infrastructure means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right-of-way rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, the term controlled means having the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
(g)(h)Existing agreements between a wireless service provider, or its agents and assigns, and a city, a county, or a city or countys agents and assigns, regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into prior to before the effective operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this section for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement. or other provisions in the existing agreement, or unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties. A wireless service provider may require the rates of this section for new small cells sites that are deployed after the operative date of this section in accordance with applicable change of law provisions in the existing agreements.
(h)(i)Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than those that authorized by Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code on a local publicly owned electric utility.
(j)This section does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utilitys reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
(k)A city or county shall consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this section that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
(l)Except as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b), nothing in this section shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code pursuant to state and federal law, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Public Utility Commission adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code.
(m)Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code
(i)(n)The Legislature finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
SEC. 4.Section 65964.5 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.5.Except as provided in Sections 65964, 65964.2, and 65850.6, or as specifically required by state law, a city or county may not adopt or enforce any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and may not regulate any communications services or impose or collect any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law.
SEC. 4.SEC. 5.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced wireless communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
(a)Reaffirms local governments historic role and authority with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.
(b)Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.
(c)Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review.
(d)Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved.
(e)Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis.
(f)Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, street lights, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public right-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95.
(g)Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, street lights, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally.
(h)Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(i)Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
SEC. 2.Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended to read:65964.As a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of the following:
(a)Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost of removal.
(b)Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may establish a build-out period for a site. A permit shall be renewed for an equivalent duration unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
(c)Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county.
SEC. 3.Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.2.(a)A small cell shall be a permitted use not subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county discretionary permit pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1)The small cell is located in the public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
(2)The small cell complies with all applicable state federal, state, and local health and safety regulations. regulations, including compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
(3)The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
(b)(1)A city or county may require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a single administrative permit a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public right-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that the permit is all permits are issued within the time frames timeframes required by state and federal law.
(2)An administrative permit Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision may be subject to the following:
(A)The same administrative permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
(B)The submission of A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commissions regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(C)A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this section may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of recision.
(D)A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county.
(E)Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements.
(F)A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell.
(G)A condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the right-of-way.
(3)The administrative permit Permits issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be subject to:
(A)Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
(B)The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this section.
(C)Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller.
(D)The regulation of any antennas micro wireless facilities mounted on cable strands. a span of wire.
(c)A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public right-of-way or public utility easements under the terms set forth in this paragraph. Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, terms, and conditions and offered on a nondiscriminatory basis for small cells. Fees shall be cost-based, and shall not exceed the lesser of either of the following: conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards. A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses. Fees shall be tiered or flat and within a range of $100 to $850 per small cell per year, indexed for inflation from the effective date of this section.
(1)The costs of ownership of the percentage of the volume of the capacity of the vertical infrastructure rendered unusable by a small cell.(2)The rate produced by applying the formula adopted by the Federal Communications Commission for telecommunications pole attachments in Section 1.1409(e)(2) of Part 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.(d)A city or county shall not unreasonably discriminate in the leasing or licensing of against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and shall make space available on property not located in the public right-of-way owned or operated by the city or county for installation of a small cell. A city or county shall authorize the installation of a small cell on property owned or controlled by the city or county not located within the public right-of-way to the same extent the city or county permits access to that property for under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions. conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law.
(e)(f)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)(A)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, using licensed or unlicensed spectrum that meets the following qualifications:
(i)Any individual antenna, All antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, is individually no more than three cubic feet in volume, and all antennas on the structure total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether in a single array or separate.
(ii)(I)The associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet for poles that can support fewer than three providers or 28 cubic feet for pole collocations that can support at least three providers, or the associated equipment on nonpole structures does not exceed 28 cubic feet for collocations that can support fewer than three providers or 35 cubic feet for collocations that can support at least three providers. provided that any individual piece of associated equipment or pole structures do not exceed nine cubic feet.
(II)The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
(ia)Electric meters and any required pedestal.
(ib)Concealment elements.
(ic)Any telecommunications demarcation box.
(id)Grounding equipment.
(ie)Power transfer switch.
(if)Cut-off Cutoff switch.
(ig)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
(B)Small cell includes a micro wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.
(B)(C)Small cell does not include communications infrastructure extending beyond the telecommunications demarcation box. either of the following:
(i)Coaxial or fiber optic cables that do not exclusively provide service to that small cell.
(ii)Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.
(2)(A)Vertical infrastructure means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, signage, or similar functions.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, the term controlled means having the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
(g)Existing agreements regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into prior to the effective date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this section for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
(h)Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than those authorized by Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code on a local publicly owned electric utility.
(f)(i)The Legislature finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
SEC. 4.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced wireless communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
(a)Reaffirms local governments historic role and authority with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.
(b)Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.
(c)Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review.
(d)Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved.
(e)Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis.
(f)Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, street lights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public right-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95.
(g)Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, street lights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally.
(h)Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(i)Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
SEC. 2.Section 65850.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:65850.6.(a)A collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the following requirements:(1)The collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility pursuant to subdivision (b) on which the collocation facility is proposed.(2)The wireless telecommunications collocation facility on which the collocation facility is proposed was subject to a discretionary permit by the city or county and an environmental impact report was certified, or a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration was adopted for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), the requirements of Section 21166 do not apply, and the collocation facility incorporates required mitigation measures specified in that environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration.(b)A wireless telecommunications collocation facility, where a subsequent collocation facility is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit pursuant to subdivision (a), shall be subject to a city or county discretionary permit issued on or after January 1, 2007, and shall comply with all of the following:(1)City or county requirements for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility that specifies types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include a collocation facility, or types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include certain types of collocation facilities; height, location, bulk, and size of the wireless telecommunications collocation facility; percentage of the wireless telecommunications collocation facility that may be occupied by collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility.(2)City or county requirements for a proposed collocation facility, including any types of collocation facilities that may be allowed on a wireless telecommunications collocation facility; height, location, bulk, and size of allowed collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for a collocation facility.(3)State and local requirements, including the general plan, any applicable community plan or specific plan, and zoning ordinance.(4)The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) through certification of an environmental impact report, or adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.(c)The city or county shall hold at least one public hearing on the discretionary permit required pursuant to subdivision (b) and notice shall be given pursuant to Section 65091, unless otherwise required by this division.(d)For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1)Collocation facility means the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility.(2)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility within the volume limits established by the Federal Communications Commission for small wireless antennas and associated equipment in the First Amendment to Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (47 C.F.R. Part 1 Appendix B). (3)Wireless telecommunications facility means equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services.(4)Wireless telecommunications collocation facility means a wireless telecommunications facility that includes collocation facilities.(e) The Legislature finds and declares that both small cell and collocation facilities, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.(f)With respect to the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, the review by the city or county shall be limited to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, or as that section may be hereafter amended.SEC. 3.SEC. 2.Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended to read:65964.As a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility or small cell, facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of the following:
(a)Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost of removal.
(b)Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may establish a build-out period for a site. A permit shall be renewed for an equivalent duration unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
(c)Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county.
SEC. 3.Section 65964.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:65964.2.(a)A small cell shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1)The small cell is located in the public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
(2)The small cell complies with all applicable state and local health and safety regulations.
(3)The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
(b)(1)A city or county may require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a single administrative permit provided that the permit is issued within the time frames required by state and federal law.
(2)An administrative permit may be subject to the following:
(A)The same administrative permit requirements as similar construction projects applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.
(B)The submission of additional information showing that the small cell complies the Federal Communications Commissions regulations concerning radio frequency emissions referenced in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of Title 47 of the United States Code.
(3)The administrative permit shall not be subject to:
(A)Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
(B)The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this section.
(C)Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller.
(D)The regulation of any antennas mounted on cable strands.
(c)A city or county shall not preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public right-of-way or public utility easements under the terms set forth in this paragraph. Vertical infrastructure shall be made available under fair and reasonable fees, terms, and conditions and offered on a nondiscriminatory basis for small cells. Fees shall be cost-based, and shall not exceed the lesser of either of the following:
(1)The costs of ownership of the percentage of the volume of the capacity of the vertical infrastructure rendered unusable by a small cell.
(2)The rate produced by applying the formula adopted by the Federal Communications Commission for telecommunications pole attachments in Section 1.1409(e)(2) of Part 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(d)A city or county shall not unreasonably discriminate in the leasing or licensing of property not located in the public right-of-way owned or operated by the city or county for installation of a small cell. A city or county shall authorize the installation of a small cell on property owned or controlled by the city or county not located within the public right-of-way to the same extent the city or county permits access to that property for commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.
(e)For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)(A)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, using licensed or unlicensed spectrum that meets the following qualifications:
(i)Any individual antenna, excluding the associated equipment, is individually no more than three cubic feet in volume, and all antennas on the structure total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether in a single array or separate.
(ii)(I)The associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet for poles that can support fewer than three providers or 28 cubic feet for pole collocations that can support at least three providers, or the associated equipment on nonpole structures does not exceed 28 cubic feet for collocations that can support fewer than three providers or 35 cubic feet for collocations that can support at least three providers.
(II)The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
(ia)Electric meters and any required pedestal.
(ib)Concealment elements.
(ic)Any telecommunications demarcation box.
(id)Grounding equipment.
(ie)Power transfer switch.
(if)Cut-off switch.
(ig)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
(B)Small cell does not include communications infrastructure extending beyond the telecommunications demarcation box.
(2)Vertical infrastructure means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, signage, or similar functions.
(f)The Legislature finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this section, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
SEC. 4.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced wireless communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
(a)Reaffirms local governments historic role and authority with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siting and construction generally.
(b)Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern.
(c)Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review.
(d)Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved.
(e)Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis.
(f)Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, street lights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public right-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95.
(g)Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, street lights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally.
(h)Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(i)Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
SEC. 2.Section 65850.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:65850.6.(a)A collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the following requirements:
(1)The collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility pursuant to subdivision (b) on which the collocation facility is proposed.
(2)The wireless telecommunications collocation facility on which the collocation facility is proposed was subject to a discretionary permit by the city or county and an environmental impact report was certified, or a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration was adopted for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), the requirements of Section 21166 do not apply, and the collocation facility incorporates required mitigation measures specified in that environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration.
(b)A wireless telecommunications collocation facility, where a subsequent collocation facility is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit pursuant to subdivision (a), shall be subject to a city or county discretionary permit issued on or after January 1, 2007, and shall comply with all of the following:
(1)City or county requirements for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility that specifies types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include a collocation facility, or types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include certain types of collocation facilities; height, location, bulk, and size of the wireless telecommunications collocation facility; percentage of the wireless telecommunications collocation facility that may be occupied by collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility.
(2)City or county requirements for a proposed collocation facility, including any types of collocation facilities that may be allowed on a wireless telecommunications collocation facility; height, location, bulk, and size of allowed collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for a collocation facility.
(3)State and local requirements, including the general plan, any applicable community plan or specific plan, and zoning ordinance.
(4)The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) through certification of an environmental impact report, or adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.
(c)The city or county shall hold at least one public hearing on the discretionary permit required pursuant to subdivision (b) and notice shall be given pursuant to Section 65091, unless otherwise required by this division.
(d)For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1)Collocation facility means the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility.
(2)Small cell means a wireless telecommunications facility within the volume limits established by the Federal Communications Commission for small wireless antennas and associated equipment in the First Amendment to Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (47 C.F.R. Part 1 Appendix B).
(2)(3)Wireless telecommunications facility means equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services.
(3)(4)Wireless telecommunications collocation facility means a wireless telecommunications facility that includes collocation facilities.
(e) The Legislature finds and declares that a both small cell and collocation facility, facilities, as defined in this section, has have a significant economic impact in California and is are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is are a matter of statewide concern.
(f)With respect to the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, the review by the city or county shall be limited to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, or as that section may be hereafter amended.
SEC. 3.Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended to read:65964.As a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, facility or small cell, as defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of the following:
(a)Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However, a performance bond or other surety or another form of security may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost of removal.
(b)Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may establish a build-out period for a site.
(c)Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Mar 3, 2018 | Last day to consider Governor’s veto pursuant to Joint Rule 58.5. |
| Oct 15, 2017 | In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending. |
| Oct 15, 2017 | Vetoed by the Governor. |
| Sep 21, 2017 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 5:30 p.m. |
| Sep 14, 2017 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 22. Noes 10.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Sep 14, 2017 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Sep 13, 2017 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| Sep 7, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 6, 2017 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Sep 5, 2017 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 1.) (September 1). |
| Aug 23, 2017 | August 23 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file. |
| Jul 18, 2017 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 17, 2017 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 12). |
| Jul 3, 2017 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on C. & C. |
| Jun 29, 2017 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on C. & C. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (June 28). |
| Jun 20, 2017 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. |
| Jun 15, 2017 | Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and C. & C. |
| Jun 1, 2017 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 31, 2017 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 32. Noes 1. Page 1350.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 26, 2017 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 25, 2017 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1188.) (May 25). |
| May 19, 2017 | Set for hearing May 25. |
| May 15, 2017 | May 15 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| May 4, 2017 | Set for hearing May 15. |
| May 2, 2017 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| May 1, 2017 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 884.) (April 26). |
| Apr 21, 2017 | Set for hearing April 26. |
| Apr 18, 2017 | April 26 hearing postponed by committee. |
| Apr 7, 2017 | Set for hearing April 26. |
| Apr 5, 2017 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 621.) (April 4). Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F. |
| Mar 28, 2017 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E., U. & C. |
| Mar 9, 2017 | Set for hearing April 4. |
| Mar 2, 2017 | Referred to Coms. on E., U. & C. and GOV. & F. |
| Feb 21, 2017 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 23. |
| Feb 17, 2017 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2017 | Unfinished Business SB649 Hueso et al. Concurrence | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 13, 2017 | SB 649 Hueso Senate Third Reading By QUIRK | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 1, 2017 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 12, 2017 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance |
Passed |
|
| Jun 28, 2017 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Communications and Conveyance] | Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government |
Passed |
|
| May 31, 2017 | Senate 3rd Reading SB649 Hueso et al. | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 25, 2017 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| May 15, 2017 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 26, 2017 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
|
| Apr 4, 2017 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Governance and Finance] | Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| - eureka | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| - inglewood | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| - los angeles | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| - north san diego | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| - riverside | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| 100 black men of long beach | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| 59 Days Of Code | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| 59DaysOfCode | ** Support | Sep 14, 2017 |
| AARP California | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Acts Full Gospel Church | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Advocacy and Leadership | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| aerofund financial | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Altadena Ivy Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| America First Latinos | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| American Building Service | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| American Indian Chamber Of Commerce Of California | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Amerit Fleet Solutions | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| An individual | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| Antelope Valley African American Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| APAPA | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Armanasco Public Relations Inc. | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| As You Sow | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Asian Resources Inc. | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Association | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| association of california cities - oc | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Association Of Environmental Professionals | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| At&T | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| babysafe project | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| bay area educators for safe tech | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Bell Canyon Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| bell canyon homeowners association | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Berkeley Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Black Business Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Black Chamber Of Commerce- Orange County | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Board of Supervisors in the County of Santa Clara | * Against Unless Amend | Apr 26, 2017 |
| Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Boys&Girls Club- El Dorado County Western Slopes | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Boys&Girls Club-Alameda | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Brentwood Community Council | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Brotherhood Crusades | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Burbank | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Burbank | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Cable and Telecommunications Association | * Against Unless Amend | Apr 26, 2017 |
| Cal Chamber | * Support | Jun 28, 2017 |
| California Alliance for Safer Technology | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| California Asian Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Asian Pacific Chamber Of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Asian Pacific Islander Chamber of Commerce | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| California Black Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| California Brain Tumor Association | * Against | Jul 12, 2017 |
| California Center for Rural Policy | * Against | Jul 12, 2017 |
| California Center For Youth Dev. And Health Promotion | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Chapter Of The American Planning Association | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Chapters of the American Public Works Association | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs | * Support | Apr 26, 2017 |
| California Communities Against Toxins | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Contract Cities Association | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| California Disabilities Senior Community Action Network | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| California Disability Senior Community Action Network | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| California Foundation For Independent Living Centers | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| California Friday Night Live Partnership | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Government Affairs Council for CTIA Trade Association | * Support | Apr 4, 2017 |
| California Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Labor Federation | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California League Of Conservation Voters | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Manufacturers & Technology Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Municipal Utilities Association | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California NAACP | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| California Park & Recreation Society | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Peace Officers Association | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| California Person Centered Advocacy Partnership | * Support | Jun 28, 2017 |
| California Probation, Parole And Correctional Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| california realtors | ** Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| California State Association Of Counties | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| california state conference of the national association | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| California State Sheriffs' Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Teamsters Public Affairs Council | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| California Telephone Association | * Indeterminate | Apr 26, 2017 |
| California Urban Partnership | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| california utilities emergency association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| CALinnovates | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| caltech san diego | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Center For Environmental Health | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Chicano Federation- San Diego County | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Child Abuse Prevention Center | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Chinese American Association of Solano County | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Choices Person-Centered Services | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Cien Amigos | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Cities Association of Santa Clara County | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| citizens for health | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City and County of San Francisco | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| city manager brian loventhal, city of campbell | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| City Of Berkeley Mayor Talamantes | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City Of Beverly Hills | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| City of Buena Park | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City Of Campbell City Manager Loventhal | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City of Chino Hills | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Citrus Heights | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Cloverdale | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Concord | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City of Culver City | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City of Downey | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City of Dublin | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Encinitas | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City Of Hayward | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Indian Wells | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City Of Irvine Mayor Wagner | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City of Lafayette | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City Of Laguna Beach Mayor | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Lakeport | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Lodi | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City Of Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City Of Monterey Mayor Roberson | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City of Murrieta | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of National City | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City Of Nevada City | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Norco | * Against | Jul 12, 2017 |
| City of Norwalk | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City Of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City Of Oakley Mayor Higgins | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City of Pasadena | * Against | Jul 12, 2017 |
| City of Point Arena | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City Of Rocklin Mayor Rohan | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City of Roseville | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of San Francisco | * Against | Apr 26, 2017 |
| City of San Jose | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| City Of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City of San Marcos | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City Of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City Of Santa Clara | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Santa Clarita | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City Of Santee | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of Thousand Oaks | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City Of Turlock Councilmember Dehart | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City Of Turlock Mayor Soiseth | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| City Of Vallejo | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City Of Vallejo | * Indeterminate | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City of Vista | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| City of West Hollywood | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City of Whittier | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| City of Woodland | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| city-county streetlight association | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| claypool consulting | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| cleanteach san diego | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| CleanTech San Diego | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Coalition for Responsible Community Development | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| coalition of concerned california communities | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Community Technology Network | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| community women vital voices | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| CONCERN: | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| concerned black men of los angeles | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Concerned Citizens Community Involvement | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Congregations Organized For Prophetic Engagement Connect | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Congress of California Seniors | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Congress of California Seniors | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| consumers for safe cell phones | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Council For Cross Cultural Affairs, Inc. | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Council on American-Islamic Relations, California | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| councilmember bill dehart, city of turlock | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| councilmember mike bonin, city of los angeles | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Councilmembers | ** Against | Apr 3, 2017 |
| Counties of Los Angeles | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| County Of San Diego | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| County of San Mateo | * Against | May 15, 2017 |
| Crown Castle Infrastructure Builder | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| CTIA | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Customer Care Solutions | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Delta Groups Engineering | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Directors | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Downtown San Diego Partnership | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| East Bay Leadership Council | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| East Los Angeles Community Union | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Ecological Options Network | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| el dorado fire department | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| El Dorado Hills Fire Department | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| El Dorado Hills Rescue and Latrobe | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Elderly Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| em-radiation research trust | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| emeryville, encinitas, escalon, fairfax, farmersville, fontana, fountain valley, | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| EMF Safety Network | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| emr protection forum | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| entrepreneurs of tomorrow | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| entrepreneurs of tomorrow foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Environmental Health Trust | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Environmental Voices | * Against | May 15, 2017 |
| Environmental Working Group | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| EPU Children's Center | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Eskaton Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Exceptional Parents Unlimited | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Exceptional Parents Unlimited Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Foundation | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Fresno Center for New Americans | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Fresno Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Fresno County Economic Development Corporation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Fresno Metro Black Chamber | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Frontier Communications | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Gateway Chambers Alliance | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Glendale | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| Glendale, City Of | * Against | May 15, 2017 |
| Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Greater La African American Chamber Of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Greater Sacramento Urban League | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Green Sangha | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Greenlining Institute | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Hacker Lab | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| health & habitat inc. | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| hispanic chamber of commerce of san francisco | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| hispanic chamber of commerce of sonoma county | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| hispanic chamber of e-commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Hispanic Heritage Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Humboldt County Board of Supervisors | * Against | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Imagine H2O | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Impact Venture Capital | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| improve your tomorrow | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| InBiz Latino-North County Hispanic Chamber | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| inbiz latino-north county hispanic chamber of commerce | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Inglewood City Of | * Against | May 15, 2017 |
| Inland Empire Economic Partnership | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Invictus Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Jobs and Housing Coalition | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Joey Gonsalves and Sons | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| Kern County | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| korean american coalition | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Korean American Coalition- La | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Korean American Seniors Association- Orange County | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| krimson and kreme, inc. | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| lake county sheriff | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Lake County Sheriffs Office | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Latin Business Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Latino Council | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| latino environmental advancement & policy project | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| latino service providers sonoma county | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Latino Service Providers-Sonoma County | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| law offices of harry v. lehmann pc | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| League Of California Cities | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| League Of California Cities, Imperial County Division | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| league of california cities, redwood empire division | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| League of California Cities, Riverside County Division | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| league of california cities, san diego county division | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| League of United Latin American Citizens | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Lifestyle Stroke Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| lighthouse counseling & family resource center | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| lime foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| lincoln area chamber of commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| lodi district chamber of commerce | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Los Angeles Urban League | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Manteca Chamber of Commerce | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| marin chapter of the weston a. price foundation | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Marin Telecommunications Agency | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| marjaree mason center | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| mayor clyde roberson, city of monterey | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| mayor donald p. wagner, city of irvine | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| mayor gary soiseth, city of turlock | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| mayor len augustine, city of vacaville | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| mayor sue higgins, city of oakley | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| mayors & councilmembers association of sonoma | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Mccmc | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| meeting of the minds | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| mendocino community college | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Mendocino Community College Community | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Merced Lao Family Community Inc. | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Modesto Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| moms advocating sustainability | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Mono County Community Development Dept. | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Monterey County Business Council | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Mother Lode Rehabilitation Enterprise Inc. | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| municipal information systems association of california | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Muniservices | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Museum of the African Diaspora | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| NAHREP | * Support | Jun 28, 2017 |
| NAHREP, Greater Sacramento | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| National Association for Children Safe Technology | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| national association of advancement of colored people | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| National Association of Hispanic Real Estate | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| National Association Of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| national association of hispanic real estate professionals, sacramento | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS | * Support | Apr 26, 2017 |
| National Association Of Women Business Owners California | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| National Association of Women Business Owners, California Chapter | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| National City Public Safety Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| National Latina Business Women Assn. of LA | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| national latina business women association of los angeles | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Nevada City, California | * Against | Jul 12, 2017 |
| North Bay Leadership Council | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| North Valley Family Ymca | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Northern California Power Agency | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| o labs | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| OCA Sacramento | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Oceanside Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| of Commerce | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| Open Networking Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Opposition | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Orange County Board of Supervisors | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Orange County Business Council | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Organization of Chinese Americans | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Organization of Chinese Americans - Sacramento | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Organization Of Chinese Americans- Sacramento | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Outward Media Inc | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce Board of | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| pacific grove chamber of commerce board of director | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| Pacific Oakes College | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| pacific palisades community council | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Palmdale Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Pasadena | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Pasadena Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Peace Officers Research Association Of California | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| People Inglewood | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| People Riverside | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| People San Diego | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| people - inglewood | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| people - riverside | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| people - san diego | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| physicians for safe technology | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Police Officers Research Association of California | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| poway chamber of commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Professionals Sacramento | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| professionals - sacramento | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| protect our local streets | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Protect our Local Streets Coalition | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Protect Our Local Streets Lobbying Coalition | * Against | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Protect Our Local Streets Lobbying Coalition | * Against Unless Amend | Jul 12, 2017 |
| puertas abiertas community resource center | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| pulsepoint | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| quail lodge & golf club | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Quail Lodge & Golf Club- Carmel | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| qualcomm | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| radiation research trust | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Rightway Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Rural County Representatives of California | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| russian american media | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Sabio Enterprises Inc. | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Sacramento Asian Chamber of Commerce | * Support | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Sacramento Black Chamber Of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| sacramento smart meter awareness | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| safewater marin alliance | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| sage associates | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| saint john's program for real change | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| San Alsemo Community Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| san anselmo community foundation | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| San Bernadino County Board of Supervisors | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| San Bernandino County Board of Supervisors | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| San Diego | * Support | Apr 4, 2017 |
| san diego county hispanic chamber of commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| San Diego North Economic Development Council | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| San Diego Regional Chamber Of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| san diego regional economic development corp | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| San Francisco Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| San Francisco Public Utilities Commission | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| San Francisco Water Power Sewer | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| San Gabriel Valley Council For Governments | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| san joaquin hispanic chamber of commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| San Joaquin Pride Center | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Scientists for Wired Technology | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Secc Corporation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| seniors for environmental awareness | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Several individuals | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Shaw Yoder & Antwih | * Against | Apr 26, 2017 |
| Sierra Club California | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Silicon Valley Leadership Group | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Silicon Valley Organization | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| slavic american chamber | ** Support | May 30, 2017 |
| Slavic American Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Small Business California | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Society for the Blind | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Solano Community College Educational | * Support | Jun 28, 2017 |
| solano community college educational foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| South Bay | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| South Bay Cities Council of Governments | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Southeast Community Development Corporation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Southern California | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| Southern California Hispania | * Support | Apr 4, 2017 |
| southern california hispanic chamber of commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Southern California Public Power Authority | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Southern Christian Leadership Conf. Of Southern Ca | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Southern Christian Leadership Conference of | ** Support | Apr 3, 2017 |
| southern christian leadership conference of southern california | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Southwest California Legislative Council | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Sprint | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Sprint Communications Company LP | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| St. John's Program for World Change | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Stop Smart Meters | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Sunny Hills Services | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| t-mobile us | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Technet | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| tehama, tuolumne, and ventura | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| TELACU Education Foundation | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| The Arc - Alameda | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| The Arc California | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| The Coalition of Concerned California Communities | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| The East Los Angeles Community Union | ** Support | Jul 5, 2017 |
| The Electro Sensitivity Disability Rights Coalition | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| the observer media group | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| The Remembrance Project | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| the urban hive | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| The Utility Reform Network | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| touro university california | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Touro University- Western Division | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Town of Apple Valley | * Against | Jul 12, 2017 |
| Town Of Colma | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| town of corte madera | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Town of Danville | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Town of Hillsborough | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Town of Los Gatos | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Town Of Mammoth Lakes | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Town of Moraga | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| town of portola valley | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| Town of San Anselmo | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Town of Yountville | ** Against | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Tracfone | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| tulare kings hispanic chamber of commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| undefined | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| Union Sanitary District | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| United Policyholders | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| United Way Fresno and Madera Counties | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| untied women's organization | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Urban Cities of California | * Against | Aug 23, 2017 |
| Urban Corps of San Diego County | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Urban Counties of California | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| urban league of san diego county | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| VALLEY INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE ASSOCIATION | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Ventura Council of Governments | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Ventura County Board of Supervisors | * Against | Jun 28, 2017 |
| Ventura County Economic Development Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Verizon | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| veteran's association of north county | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| veterans for radiation safety | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| vietnamese american chamber of commerce | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Voice For Hispanic Real Estate | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| voluntary organizations active in a disaster | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Volunteers of America Southwest | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| weave, inc. | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| weingart east la ymca | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| West Marin Wireless Radiation Action Group | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Western Riverside Council Of Governments | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Westside Cities Council of Governments | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| westwood south of santa monica blvd. homeowner association | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| whizgirls academy | ** Support | Jul 11, 2017 |
| Whizgirls Academy Wireless Infrastructure Association | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| windheim emf solutions | ** Against | Jul 5, 2017 |
| wireless infrastructure association | * Support | Jul 12, 2017 |
| wireless radiation alert network | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
| women's intercultural network | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| Young Visionaries Youth Leadership Academy | ** Support | Jan 2, 2018 |
| your own health and fitness | ** Against | Jan 2, 2018 |
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB |
VETO
Bill No: SB 649
:
SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/4/17
AYES: Hueso, Morrell, Bradford, Cannella, Hertzberg, Hill, McGuire, Skinner, Stern, Vidak, Wiener
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/26/17
AYES: McGuire, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/25/17
AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
SENATE FLOOR: 32-1, 5/31/17
AYES: Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Berryhill, Bradford, Cannella, De León, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wiener, Wilk
NOES: Glazer
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Beall, Jackson, Monning, Newman, Portantino, Wieckowski
SENATE FLOOR: 22-10, 9/14/17
AYES: Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Berryhill, Cannella, De León, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hueso, Lara, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Skinner, Stone, Vidak, Wiener, Wilk
NOES: Allen, Beall, Glazer, Hill, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Monning, Portantino, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bradford, Galgiani, Mendoza, Mitchell, Moorlach, Newman, Roth, Stern
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-16, 9/13/17 - See last page for vote
DIGEST:
This bill establishes a statewide framework for streamlining the permit siting process for small cell wireless facilities that meet specified requirements. Specifically, this bill requires an administrative and encroachment permit in lieu of a discretionary permit for installations in the right-of-way and also within a commercial or industrial zone, limits the fees to these attachments to all costs plus $250, and establish other requirements.
- Establishes specified limitations, preemptions and preservation of local zoning authority in relation to the siting of personal wireless service facilities as part of the many provisions of the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996. (Other provisions, see Policy Committee Analyses) (47 United States Code §332)
- Limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by the city or county to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, as specified. (California Government Code §65850.6)
- Provides that no state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. (47 United States Code §253)
- Provides that a state or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such a tower or base station. (47 United States Code §1455 (a))
- Establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles, providing the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. (Public Utilities Code §767.5)
- Authorizes telegraph or telephone corporations to construct lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within the state, and may erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. (Public Utilities Code §7901)
- Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature, as specified, that municipalities shall have the right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, as specified. (Public Utilities Code §7901.1)
- Establishes a framework, process, fees, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to municipal utility poles, providing for safety and reasonable terms and conditions. (Public Utilities Code §9510 et seq.)
- Provides that a wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies several requirements, as specified. (California Government Code §65850.6)
This bill:
- Requires a small cell to be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county below, if it is located in a public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use; (2) complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and,(3) the small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Allows a city or a county to require that a small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
- Allows permits issued above to be subject to several conditions, including: the same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner; a requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations concerning radio frequency emissions, as specified; a condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county; compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements; a condition to indemnify a city, county, or city and county, against claims brought by third parties against the city, county, or city and county, associated with the installation of a small cell, and many others.
- Prohibits permits issued above from being subject to specified conditions, including requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
- Prohibits a city or county from imposing permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended on communication cables strung between utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under specified terms.
- Provides that a city or county may charge the following fees:
- An annual charge not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure;
- An annual attachment rate that does not exceed the annual cost of ownership of the vertical infrastructure calculated by the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any; and,
- A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
- Requires a city or a county to comply with specified requirements before adopting or increasing the annual attachment rate and requires a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee, to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee, as specified.
- Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to a rate, charge, term, or condition that is different from that established pursuant to the procedures in this bill.
- Prohibits a city or county from discriminating against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and requires a city or a county to make space available on property not located in public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
- Provides that this bill does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
- Provides that existing agreements with a wireless provider or its agent regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this bill remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this bill for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
- Provides that this bill does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utility's reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
- Provides that this bill shall not be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the PUC, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified, and shall not preclude a city or county from exercising authority granted to a local government to enforce state safety regulations.
- Requires, on or before July 1, 2019, and again on or before December 31, 2020, each wireless service provider to submit a report to the Legislature specifying the number of, and geographical location by ZIP Code of, the small cells that the wireless service provider has commenced operating within the state during the 18 months preceding the date of each report.
- Prohibits, with specified exceptions, a city or county from requiring a provider of video or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit to provide any communications services that are provided by a provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA), as specified, nor may a city or county require such a provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by DIVCA.
Background
Small Cell. Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network, typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Each small cell can only work with a corresponding wireless service provider. Unlike larger macrocell large towers, small cells will need to be deployed at greater volumes in more concentrated areas. These smaller wireless facilities can augment the capacity of the wireless bandwidth of the macrocell towers.
Planning and Zoning. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan and provides for the adoption of zoning ordinance that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, among other things. The Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits. Providers of wireless telecommunications services must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Similarly, wireless carriers must seek local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on structures and facilities where that equipment already exists, which are referred to as collocations.
Existing law, as enacted by SB 1627 (Kehoe, Chapter 676, Statues of 2006), requires local governments to approve collocations through ministerial processes, and prohibits local governments from limiting the duration of permits for wireless sites to less than 10 years, absent good reason. Existing law, as enacted by AB 57 (Quirk, Chapter 684, Statutes of 2015), specifies that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if a local government does not act on a permit application within reasonable time periods specified in federal regulations.
Telecommunications companies have access to attach their equipment to utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state and federal regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles and municipal utility poles, providing the CPUC the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Telecommunications companies are authorized to erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but existing law authorizes them to regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the public right-of-way. In addition, investor owned utilities and municipal utilities can only charge cost-based rates for attaching to their utility poles. These restrictions do not apply to other publicly-owned infrastructure in the right-of-way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can continue to impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. Since the number of small cells needed to cover an area is much higher than for traditional wireless facilities, carriers and cities have negotiated agreements and streamlined permit processes for the deployment of small cells that require lease payments to use city infrastructure. Currently, these agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis, and, as such, lease rates can vary significantly among cities from a hundred dollars to thousands of dollars.
Home Rule. Local officials’ first duty is to protect the interests of their constituents. They have broad authority to regulate activities to preserve the public welfare, and they have developed processes in accordance with that duty for permitting wireless telecommunications facilities. Some jurisdictions impose more conditions than others due to specific local circumstances, and the FCC has recognized this need. By making small cells permitted uses, SB 649 extends by-right development to small cells, and it prohibits local governments from establishing discretionary permitting processes in rights of way and commercial and industrial zones. SB 649 requires local governments to offer up their vertical infrastructure in the rights of way and commercial and industrial zones for use by other entities and removes their ability to charge fair rent by capping lease fees for vertical infrastructure.
Environmental Health Effects. Some of the opponents present several studies, including a California Medical Association resolution, supporting efforts to reevaluate microwave safety exposure and efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to a level that do not cause harm. However, federal law, limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by states and local governments in so far as a proposed project is in compliance with FCC requirements. However, those who oppose this bill out of concern for the health impacts of wireless technologies are not satisfied with the standards the FCC has established.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown, potentially reimbursable mandate costs, to the extent that the Commission on State Mandates determines that certain costs incurred by local governments are not recoverable by fees. Existing law, as enacted by AB 1027 (Buchanan, Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011) requires a publicly owned utility to make appropriate space and capacity on its utility poles and support structures available for use by a communication provider. That measure authorized local entities to charge an annual fee for use of a pole, and limited the fee to the annual cost of ownership of the proportion of the pole dedicated to the telecommunications equipment. Any costs incurred by a public utility that exceeded the amount of fees charged for pole attachments could be passed on to utility customers.
Cities and counties currently negotiate lease rates for small cell attachments on publicly owned vertical infrastructure that is market based, and many local governments may use excess lease revenues to pay for other public services or to subsidize the extension of wireless service in underserved areas. This bill limits the fees that a city or county may charge for the installation of a small cell telecommunications facility on publicly owned vertical infrastructure to a range of $100 to $850 per small cell per year. Since these rates are much lower than what some current agreements provide, many local governments will lose significant discretionary revenues. Staff notes that loss of local revenues does not, on its own, constitute a reimbursable mandate.
To the extent that the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill imposes a higher level of service on cities and counties, and the fees specified in the bill are insufficient to fully offset a city or county’s costs to accommodate the attachment of small cells to vertical infrastructure, this bill may be deemed a reimbursable mandate. This bill would require cities and counties to negotiate lease rates with wireless service providers (currently an optional activity), draft master agreements, and determine actual annual costs associated with leasing space on a particular pole or set of poles.
CTIA (source)
59 Days Of Code
100 Black Men of Long Beach
Acts Full Gospel Church
Aerofund Financial
American Building Service
American Indian Chamber of Commerce of California
Amerit Fleet Solutions
Antelope Valley African American Chamber of Commerce
Armanasco Public Relations Inc.
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association
Asian Resources Inc.
AT&T
Bell Canyon Association
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce
Black Business Association
Black Chamber of Commerce- Orange County
Boys&Girls Club-Alameda
Boys&Girls Club- El Dorado County Western Slopes
Brotherhood Crusades
California Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers-Board of Directors
California Business Roundtable
California Center for Youth Dev. and Health Promotion
California Friday Night Live Partnership
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California State Conference of the National Association of Advancement of Colored People
California State Sheriffs’ Association
California Urban Partnership
California Utilities Emergency Association
CALinnovates
CalTech San Diego
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce
Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce
Chicano Federation- San Diego County
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Chinese American Association of Solano County
Claypool Consulting
Coalition for Responsible Community Development
Community Technology Network
Community Women Vital Voices
Concerned Black Men of Los Angeles
Concerned Citizens Community Involvement
Congress of California Seniors
Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement
CONNECT
Council for Cross Cultural Affairs, Inc.
Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership
Council on American-Islamic Relations, California
Customer Care Solutions
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Delta Groups Engineering
Downtown San Diego Partnership
East Bay Leadership Council
East Los Angeles Community Union
Elderly Foundation
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
El Dorado Hills Fire Department
Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow Foundation
Eskaton Foundation
Exceptional Parents Unlimited
Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation
Fresno Center for New Americans
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Fresno County Economic Development Corporation
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater LA African American Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Hacker Lab
Hispanic Chamber of e-Commerce
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco
Hispanic Heritage Foundation
I/O Labs
Imagine H2O
Impact Venture Capital
Improve Your Tomorrow
InBiz Latino-North County Hispanic Chamber
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group
Invictus Foundation
Jobs and Housing Coalition
Korean American Coalition- LA
Korean American Seniors Association- Orange County
Krimson and Kreme, Inc.
Lake County Sheriff
Latin Business Association
Latino Council
Latino Service Providers-Sonoma County
Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy Project
League of United Latin American Citizens
Lifestyle Stroke Foundation
Lighthouse Counseling & Family Resource Center
LIME Foundation
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Urban League
Marjaree Mason Center
Meeting of the Minds
Mendocino Community College Community
Merced Lao Family Community Inc.
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Monterey County Business Council
Mother Lode Rehabilitation Enterprise Inc.
Museum of the African Diaspora
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – California State Conference
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Eureka
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Inglewood/South Bay
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Los Angeles
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – North San Diego
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Riverside
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals – Sacramento
National Association of Women Business Owners California
National City Public Safety Foundation
National Latina Business Women Association of Los Angeles
North Bay Leadership Council
North Valley Family YMCA
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Open Networking Foundation
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Organization of Chinese Americans- Sacramento
Outward Media Inc
Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Oakes College
Palmdale Chamber of Commerce
Pasadena/Altadena Ivy Foundation
Pasadena Chamber of Commerce
Police Officers Research Association of California
Poway Chamber of Commerce
Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center
PulsePoint
Quail Lodge & Golf Club- Carmel
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
RightWay Foundation
Russian American Media
Sabio Enterprises Inc.
Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps
Saint John’s Program for Real Change
Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund
San Alsemo Community Foundation
San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Diego North Economic Development Council
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Pride Center
San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
SECC Corporation
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Silicon Valley Organization
Slavic American Chamber of Commerce
Small Business California
Society for the Blind
Solano Community College Educational Foundation
South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce
Southeast Community Development Corporation
Southern California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Southern Christian Leadership Conf. of Southern CA
Sunny Hills Services
Sprint
T-Mobile US
TechNet
TELACU Education Foundation
The Arc - Alameda
The Arc California
The Observer Media Group
The Urban Hive
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
Touro University- Western Division
Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
United Policyholders
United Way- Fresno and Madera Counties
United Women’s Organization
Urban Corps of San Diego County
Urban League of San Diego County
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Ventura County Economic Development Association
Verizon
Veteran’s Association of North County
Vietnamese American Chamber of Commerce
Voice for Hispanic Real Estate
Voluntary Organizations Active in a Disaster
Volunteers of America Southwest
WEAVE, Inc.
Weingart East LA YMCA
WhizGirls Academy
Wireless Infrastructure Association
Women’s Intercultural Network
Young Visionaries Youth Leadership Academy
OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/24/17)
AARP California
Association of California Cities - OC
Association of Environmental Professionals
BabySafe Project
Bay Area Educators for Safe Tech
California Chapter of the American Planning Association
California Chapters of the American Public Works Association
California Communities Against Toxins
California Labor Federation
California League of Conservation Voters
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Park & Recreation Society
California State Association of Counties
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Center For Environmental Health
Citizens For Health
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Cities of Adelanto, Albany, Alameda, American Canyon, Arcadia, Arcata, Artesia, Atwater, Azusa, Bakersfield, Banning, Barstow, Benicia, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Big Bear Lake, Bishop, Brea, Buena Park, Burbank, Calipatria, Camarillo, Capitola, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Carpinteria, Carson, Ceres, Chino Hills, Chula Vista, Citrus Heights, Claremont, Clearlake, Cloverdale, Colusa, Concord, Corona, Coronado, Culver City, Cupertino, Davis, Del Rey Oaks, Diamond Bar, Dorris, Dublin, Eastvale, El Centro, Elk Grove, Emeryville, Encinitas, Escalon, Fontana, Fortuna, Foster City, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Fresno, Fullerton, Galt, Garden Grove, Goleta, Grand Terrance, Gustine, Hayward, Hermosa Beach, Hesperia, Hughson , Huntington Beach, Huntington Park, Indio, Indian Wells, Inglewood, Jurupa Valley, King City, La Cañada, La Habra, La Mirada, La Palma, La Quinta, La Verne, Lafayette, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lakeport, Lakewood, Lawndale, Lincoln, Live Oak, Livermore, Livingston, Lodi, Loma Linda, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Banos, Lomita, Lynwood, Manteca, Martinez, Menifee, Menlo Park, Merced, Mill Valley, Mission Viejo, Modesto, Montclair, Monterey Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Morgan Hill, Murrieta, National City, Nevada City, Newport Beach, Norco, Norwalk, Oakland, Oceanside, Pacific Grove, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Palo Alto, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Patterson, Perris, Petaluma, Pico Rivera, Piedmont, Pismo Beach, Placentia, Placerville, Pleasanton, Point Arena, Pomona, Porterville, Portola , Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Rancho Santa Margarita, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redding, Redlands, Redondo Beach, Richmond, Rio Dell, Riverbank, Riverside, Rosemead, Roseville, Salinas, Sanger, San Bernardino, San Carlos, San Clemente, San Dimas, San Jose, San Leandro, San Marcos, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Sand City, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Santee, Seaside, Sebastopol, Scotts Valley, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, South Pasadena, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Sutter Creek, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Tracy, Tulare, Tustin, Ukiah, Union City, Vacaville, Vallejo, Ventura, Victorville, Vista, Walnut, Walnut Creek, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland, Yreka, and Yucaipa
City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee
City of Berkeley Mayor Talamantes
City of Campbell City Manager Loventhal
City of Irvine Mayor Wagner
City of Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia
City of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
City of Monterey Mayor Roberson
City of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf
City of Oakley Mayor Higgins
City of Rocklin Mayor Rohan
City of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo
City of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido
City of Turlock Councilmember DeHart
City of Turlock Mayor Soiseth
Coalition of Concerned California Communities
Congress of California Seniors
Counties of San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tehama, Ventura,
County Board of Supervisors: Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Solano, and Yolo
Ecological Options Network
EM-Radiation Research Trust
EMF Safety Network
EMR Protection Forum
Environmental Working Group
Frontier Communications
Green Sangha
Health & Habitat Inc.
Kern County
Law Offices of Harry V. Lehmann PC
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Imperial County Division
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
Lodi District Chamber of Commerce
Manteca Chamber of Commerce
Marin Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Marin Telecommunications Agency
MCCMC
Mono County Community Development Dept.
MuniServices
Northern California Power Agency
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Physicians for Safe Technology
Protect our Local Streets Coalition
Rural County Representatives of California
San Gabriel Valley Council for Governments
SafeWater Marin Alliance
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Seniors for Environmental Awareness
Scientists for Wired Technology
Sierra Club California
Southern California Public Power Authority
Southwest California Legislative Council
The Utility Reform Network
Town of Apple Valley, Corte Madera, Danville, Hillsborough, Mammoth Lakes, Moraga, Portola Valley, and Ross
Union Sanitary District
Urban Counties of California
Ventura Council of Governments
Veterans for Radiation Safety
West Marin Wireless Radiation Action Group
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Westside Cities Council of Governments
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowner Association
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
Your Own Health and Fitness
Several Individuals
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: CTIA, sponsor of this measure, states:
"SB 649 creates a reliable set of guidelines for communities in making decisions on the deployment of small cell wireless technology with a process that reflects their much smaller size and footprint than traditional cell phone towers. It also ensures local governments retain oversight for health and safety conditions building and encroachment permits, local code compliance, and feasible design and collocation standards. Given the way Californians live today, citizens, businesses, public safety agencies and government demand the latest technology and the highest speeds in wireless communications. A clear process is needed so network developers can plan appropriately and avoid unnecessary delays in delivering required cutting-edge services.
"Nearly a dozen states across the country have already moved to streamline the deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure to accommodate consumers' insatiable data demands and ready themselves for 5G wireless technology. It is imperative that California retain its position as a global leader in technology and innovation. SB 649 is a smart, cooperative approach that tells the rest of the country and the world that California is ready for investment and will retain its position as leader in innovation."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Chapter of the American Planning Association, the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, the Rural County Representatives of California, and the Urban Counties of California, in opposition, write, "Despite promises made by the wireless industry, the sponsor of SB 649, this bill fails to deliver on its most basic promises. Fundamentally, SB 649 seeks to eliminate public input, full local environmental and design review, mandate the leasing of publicly owned infrastructure and eliminate the ability for local governments to negotiate leases or any public benefit for the installation of 'small cell' equipment on taxpayer funded property. By changing the permitting process from discretionary (conditional-use permits) to a ministerial (building/encroachment permit) process, SB 649 would effectively eliminate the ability for constituents to have a say over the character of their own communities (except for coastal zone and registered historic district communities that are carved out). Most troubling is the shift of power from the community and its elected officials over to for-profit corporations for wireless equipment installations that can often be controversial. Understanding the need to close the digital divide and the many benefits from wireless technology, local elected officials often help balance these needs with the concerns from their residents. Local residents and businesses need their local governments to be equipped to respond when they have legitimate concerns, especially as they relate to the location and design of these installations near or adjacent to their property.
Additionally, as noted above, some opposition stems from the growth of radio frequency which would increase near homes under this bill.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
I am returning Senate Bill 649 without my signature.
This bill establishes a uniform permitting process for small cell wireless equipment and fixes the rates local governments may charge for placement of that equipment on city or county owned property, such as streetlights and traffic signal poles.
There is something of real value in having a process that results in extending this innovative technology rapidly and efficiently. Nevertheless, I believe that the interest which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-16, 9/13/17
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Bigelow, Bocanegra, Brough, Burke, Cervantes, Chávez, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kiley, Lackey, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron, Weber
NOES: Baker, Caballero, Chiu, Cooley, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Kalra, Levine, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk-Silva, Ridley-Thomas, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Chau, Chu, Cunningham, Dahle, Friedman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Holden, Limón, Mullin, Reyes, Wood, Rendon
1/2/18 9:51:58
**** END ****
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 649
:
SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/4/17
AYES: Hueso, Morrell, Bradford, Cannella, Hertzberg, Hill, McGuire, Skinner, Stern, Vidak, Wiener
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/26/17
AYES: McGuire, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/25/17
AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
SENATE FLOOR: 32-1, 5/31/17
AYES: Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Berryhill, Bradford, Cannella, De León, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wiener, Wilk
NOES: Glazer
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Beall, Jackson, Monning, Newman, Portantino, Wieckowski
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-16, 9/13/17 - See last page for vote
DIGEST:
This bill establishes a statewide framework for streamlining the permit siting process for small cell wireless facilities that meet specified requirements. Specifically, this bill requires an administrative and encroachment permit in lieu of a discretionary permit for installations in the right-of-way and also within a commercial or industrial zone, limits the fees to these attachments to all costs plus $250, and establishes other requirements.
Assembly Amendments add the Senate-negotiated annual fees and clarify additional fees that can be assessed on small cell installations by local jurisdictions to recover a local jurisdiction’s costs; establish a process by which fees can be increased; define, further, feasible design; remove provisions that require the automatic renewal of permits for wireless telecommunications facilities; clarify the definition of wireless service provider; emphasize obligations to comply with safety requirements; require service providers to submit a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2019 detailing deployment of small cell installations in the previous 18 months; require a condition to indemnify a local jurisdiction against claims brought by third parties; and make other amendments.
Existing law:
- Establishes specified limitations, preemptions and preservation of local zoning authority in relation to the siting of personal wireless service facilities as part of the many provisions of the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996. (Other provisions, see Policy Committee Analyses) (47 United States Code §332)
- Limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by the city or county to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, as specified. (California Government Code §65850.6)
- Provides that no state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. (47 United States Code §253)
- Provides that a state or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such a tower or base station. (47 United States Code §1455 (a))
- Establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles, providing the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. (Public Utilities Code §767.5)
- Authorizes telegraph or telephone corporations to construct lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within the state, and may erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. (Public Utilities Code §7901)
- Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature, as specified, that municipalities shall have the right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, as specified. (Public Utilities Code §7901.1)
- Establishes a framework, process, fees, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to municipal utility poles, providing for safety and reasonable terms and conditions. (Public Utilities Code §9510 et seq.)
- Provides that a wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies several requirements, as specified. (Government Code §65850.6)
This bill:
- Requires a small cell to be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county below, if (a) it is located in a public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use; (b) complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and (c) the small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Allows a city or a county to require that a small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
- Allows permits issued above to be subject to several conditions, including: the same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner; a requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations concerning radio frequency emissions, as specified; a condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county; compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements; a condition to indemnify a city, county, or city and county, against claims brought by third parties against the city, county, or city and county, associated with the installation of a small cell, and many others.
- Prohibits permits issued above from being subject to specified conditions, including requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
- Prohibits a city or county from imposing permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended on communication cables strung between utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under specified terms.
- Provides that a city or county may charge the following fees:
- An annual charge not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure;
- An annual attachment rate that does not exceed the annual cost of ownership of the vertical infrastructure calculated by the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any; and,
- A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
- Requires a city or a county to comply with specified requirements before adopting or increasing the annual attachment rate and requires a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee, to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee, as specified.
- Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to a rate, charge, term, or condition that is different from that established pursuant to the procedures in this bill.
- Prohibits a city or county from discriminating against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and requires a city or a county to make space available on property not located in public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
- Provides that this bill does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
- Provides that existing agreements with a wireless provider or its agent regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this bill remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this bill for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
- Provides that this bill does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utility's reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
- Provides that this bill shall not be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the PUC, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified, and shall not preclude a city or county from exercising authority granted to a local government to enforce state safety regulations.
- Requires, on or before July 1, 2019, and again on or before December 31, 2020, each wireless service provider to submit a report to the Legislature specifying the number of, and geographical location by ZIP Code of, the small cells that the wireless service provider has commenced operating within the state during the 18 months preceding the date of each report.
- Prohibits, with specified exceptions, a city or county from requiring a provider of video or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit to provide any communications services that are provided by a provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA), as specified, nor may a city or county require such a provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by DIVCA.
Background
Small Cell. Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network, typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Each small cell can only work with a corresponding wireless service provider. Unlike larger macrocell large towers, small cells will need to be deployed at greater volumes in more concentrated areas. These smaller wireless facilities can augment the capacity of the wireless bandwidth of the macrocell towers.
Planning and Zoning. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan and provides for the adoption of zoning ordinance that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, among other things. The Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits. Providers of wireless telecommunications services must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Similarly, wireless carriers must seek local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on structures and facilities where that equipment already exists, which are referred to as collocations.
Existing law, as enacted by SB 1627 (Kehoe, Chapter 676, Statues of 2006), requires local governments to approve collocations through ministerial processes, and prohibits local governments from limiting the duration of permits for wireless sites to less than 10 years, absent good reason. Existing law, as enacted by AB 57 (Quirk, Chapter 684, Statutes of 2015), specifies that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if a local government does not act on a permit application within reasonable time periods specified in federal regulations.
Telecommunications companies have access to attach their equipment to utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state and federal regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles and municipal utility poles, providing the CPUC the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Telecommunications companies are authorized to erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but existing law authorizes them to regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the public right-of-way. In addition, investor owned utilities and municipal utilities can only charge cost-based rates for attaching to their utility poles. These restrictions do not apply to other publicly-owned infrastructure in the right-of-way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can continue to impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. Since the number of small cells needed to cover an area is much higher than for traditional wireless facilities, carriers and cities have negotiated agreements and streamlined permit processes for the deployment of small cells that require lease payments to use city infrastructure. Currently, these agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis, and, as such, lease rates can vary significantly among cities from a hundred dollars to thousands of dollars.
Home Rule. Local officials’ first duty is to protect the interests of their constituents. They have broad authority to regulate activities to preserve the public welfare, and they have developed processes in accordance with that duty for permitting wireless telecommunications facilities. Some jurisdictions impose more conditions than others due to specific local circumstances, and the FCC has recognized this need. By making small cells permitted uses, SB 649 extends by-right development to small cells, and it prohibits local governments from establishing discretionary permitting processes in rights of way and commercial and industrial zones. SB 649 requires local governments to offer up their vertical infrastructure in the rights of way and commercial and industrial zones for use by other entities and removes their ability to charge fair rent by capping lease fees for vertical infrastructure.
Environmental Health Effects. Some of the opponents present several studies, including a California Medical Association resolution, supporting efforts to reevaluate microwave safety exposure and efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to a level that do not cause harm. However, federal law, limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by states and local governments in so far as a proposed project is in compliance with FCC requirements. However, those who oppose this bill out of concern for the health impacts of wireless technologies are not satisfied with the standards the FCC has established.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown, potentially significant increased court costs resulting from actions challenging local ordinances or resolutions adopting attachment rate fees or fee increases.
CTIA (source)
59DaysOfCode
100 Black Men of Long Beach
Acts Full Gospel Church
Aerofund Financial
American Building Service
American Indian Chamber of Commerce of California
Amerit Fleet Solutions
Antelope Valley African American Chamber of Commerce
Armanasco Public Relations Inc.
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association
Asian Resources Inc.
AT&T
Bell Canyon Association
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce
Black Business Association
Black Chamber of Commerce- Orange County
Boys&Girls Club-Alameda
Boys&Girls Club- El Dorado County Western Slopes
Brotherhood Crusades
California Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers-Board of Directors
California Business Roundtable
California Center for Youth Dev. and Health Promotion
California Friday Night Live Partnership
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California State Conference of the National Association of Advancement of Colored People
California State Sheriffs’ Association
California Urban Partnership
California Utilities Emergency Association
CALinnovates
CalTech San Diego
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce
Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce
Chicano Federation- San Diego County
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Chinese American Association of Solano County
Claypool Consulting
Coalition for Responsible Community Development
Community Technology Network
Community Women Vital Voices
Concerned Black Men of Los Angeles
Concerned Citizens Community Involvement
Congress of California Seniors
Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement
CONNECT
Council for Cross Cultural Affairs, Inc.
Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership
Council on American-Islamic Relations, California
Customer Care Solutions
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Delta Groups Engineering
Downtown San Diego Partnership
East Bay Leadership Council
East Los Angeles Community Union
Elderly Foundation
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
El Dorado Hills Fire Department
Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow Foundation
Eskaton Foundation
Exceptional Parents Unlimited
Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation
Fresno Center for New Americans
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Fresno County Economic Development Corporation
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater LA African American Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Hacker Lab
Hispanic Chamber of e-Commerce
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco
Hispanic Heritage Foundation
I/O Labs
Imagine H2O
Impact Venture Capital
Improve Your Tomorrow
InBiz Latino-North County Hispanic Chamber
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group
Invictus Foundation
Jobs and Housing Coalition
Korean American Coalition- LA
Korean American Seniors Association- Orange County
Krimson and Kreme, Inc.
Lake County Sheriff
Latin Business Association
Latino Council
Latino Service Providers-Sonoma County
Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy Project
League of United Latin American Citizens
Lifestyle Stroke Foundation
Lighthouse Counseling & Family Resource Center
LIME Foundation
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Urban League
Marjaree Mason Center
Meeting of the Minds
Mendocino Community College Community
Merced Lao Family Community Inc.
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Monterey County Business Council
Mother Lode Rehabilitation Enterprise Inc.
Museum of the African Diaspora
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – California State Conference
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Eureka
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Inglewood/South Bay
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Los Angeles
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – North San Diego
National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Riverside
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals – Sacramento
National Association of Women Business Owners California
National City Public Safety Foundation
National Latina Business Women Association of Los Angeles
North Bay Leadership Council
North Valley Family YMCA
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Open Networking Foundation
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Organization of Chinese Americans- Sacramento
Outward Media Inc
Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
Pacific Oakes College
Palmdale Chamber of Commerce
Pasadena/Altadena Ivy Foundation
Pasadena Chamber of Commerce
Police Officers Research Association of California
Poway Chamber of Commerce
Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center
PulsePoint
Quail Lodge & Golf Club- Carmel
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
RightWay Foundation
Russian American Media
Sabio Enterprises Inc.
Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps
Saint John’s Program for Real Change
Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund
San Alsemo Community Foundation
San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Diego North Economic Development Council
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Pride Center
San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce
SECC Corporation
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Silicon Valley Organization
Slavic American Chamber of Commerce
Small Business California
Society for the Blind
Solano Community College Educational Foundation
South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce
Southeast Community Development Corporation
Southern California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Southern Christian Leadership Conf. of Southern CA
Sunny Hills Services
Sprint
T-Mobile US
TechNet
TELACU Education Foundation
The Arc - Alameda
The Arc California
The Observer Media Group
The Urban Hive
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
Touro University- Western Division
Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
United Policyholders
United Way- Fresno and Madera Counties
United Women’s Organization
Urban Corps of San Diego County
Urban League of San Diego County
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Ventura County Economic Development Association
Verizon
Veteran’s Association of North County
Vietnamese American Chamber of Commerce
Voice for Hispanic Real Estate
Voluntary Organizations Active in a Disaster
Volunteers of America Southwest
WEAVE, Inc.
Weingart East LA YMCA
WhizGirls Academy
Wireless Infrastructure Association
Women’s Intercultural Network
Young Visionaries Youth Leadership Academy
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/13/17)
AARP California
Association of California Cities - OC
Association of Environmental Professionals
BabySafe Project
Bay Area Educators for Safe Tech
California Chapter of the American Planning Association
California Chapters of the American Public Works Association
California Communities Against Toxins
California Labor Federation
California League of Conservation Voters
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Park & Recreation Society
California State Association of Counties
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Center For Environmental Health
Citizens For Health
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Cities of Adelanto, Albany, Alameda, American Canyon, Arcadia, Arcata, Artesia, Atwater, Azusa, Bakersfield, Banning, Barstow, Benicia, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Big Bear Lake, Bishop, Brea, Buena Park, Burbank, Calipatria, Camarillo, Capitola, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Carpinteria, Carson, Ceres, Chino Hills, Chula Vista, Citrus Heights, Claremont, Clearlake, Cloverdale, Colusa, Concord, Corona, Coronado, Culver City, Cupertino, Davis, Del Rey Oaks, Diamond Bar, Dorris, Dublin, Eastvale, El Centro, Elk Grove, Emeryville, Encinitas, Escalon, Fontana, Fortuna, Foster City, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Fresno, Fullerton, Galt, Garden Grove, Goleta, Grand Terrance, Gustine, Hayward, Hermosa Beach, Hesperia, Hughson , Huntington Beach, Huntington Park, Indio, Indian Wells, Inglewood, Jurupa Valley, King City, La Cañada, La Habra, La Mirada, La Palma, La Quinta, La Verne, Lafayette, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lakeport, Lakewood, Lawndale, Lincoln, Live Oak, Livermore, Livingston, Lodi, Loma Linda, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Banos, Lomita, Lynwood, Manteca, Martinez, Menifee, Menlo Park, Merced, Mill Valley, Mission Viejo, Modesto, Montclair, Monterey Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Morgan Hill, Murrieta, National City, Nevada City, Newport Beach, Norco, Norwalk, Oakland, Oceanside, Pacific Grove, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Palo Alto, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Patterson, Perris, Petaluma, Pico Rivera, Piedmont, Pismo Beach, Placentia, Placerville, Pleasanton, Point Arena, Pomona, Porterville, Portola , Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Rancho Santa Margarita, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redding, Redlands, Redondo Beach, Richmond, Rio Dell, Riverbank, Riverside, Rosemead, Roseville, Salinas, Sanger, San Bernardino, San Carlos, San Clemente, San Dimas, San Jose, San Leandro, San Marcos, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Sand City, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Santee, Seaside, Sebastopol, Scotts Valley, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, South Pasadena, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Sutter Creek, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Tracy, Tulare, Tustin, Ukiah, Union City, Vacaville, Vallejo, Ventura, Victorville, Vista, Walnut, Walnut Creek, West Covina, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland, Yreka, and Yucaipa
City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee
City of Berkeley Mayor Talamantes
City of Campbell City Manager Loventhal
City of Irvine Mayor Wagner
City of Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia
City of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti
City of Monterey Mayor Roberson
City of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf
City of Oakley Mayor Higgins
City of Rocklin Mayor Rohan
City of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo
City of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido
City of Turlock Councilmember DeHart
City of Turlock Mayor Soiseth
Coalition of Concerned California Communities
Congress of California Seniors
Counties of San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Tehama, Ventura,
County Board of Supervisors: Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Solano, and Yolo
Ecological Options Network
EM-Radiation Research Trust
EMF Safety Network
EMR Protection Forum
Environmental Working Group
Frontier Communications
Green Sangha
Health & Habitat Inc.
Kern County
Law Offices of Harry V. Lehmann PC
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Imperial County Division
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
Lodi District Chamber of Commerce
Manteca Chamber of Commerce
Marin Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Marin Telecommunications Agency
MCCMC
Mono County Community Development Dept.
MuniServices
Northern California Power Agency
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Physicians for Safe Technology
Protect our Local Streets Coalition
Rural County Representatives of California
San Gabriel Valley Council for Governments
SafeWater Marin Alliance
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Seniors for Environmental Awareness
Scientists for Wired Technology
Sierra Club California
Southern California Public Power Authority
Southwest California Legislative Council
The Utility Reform Network
Town of Apple Valley, Corte Madera, Danville, Hillsborough, Mammoth Lakes, Moraga, Portola Valley, and Ross
Union Sanitary District
Urban Counties of California
Ventura Council of Governments
Veterans for Radiation Safety
West Marin Wireless Radiation Action Group
Western Riverside Council of Governments
Westside Cities Council of Governments
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowner Association
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
Your Own Health and Fitness
Several Individuals
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: CTIA, sponsor of this bill, states:
"SB 649 creates a reliable set of guidelines for communities in making decisions on the deployment of small cell wireless technology with a process that reflects their much smaller size and footprint than traditional cell phone towers. It also ensures local governments retain oversight for health and safety conditions building and encroachment permits, local code compliance, and feasible design and collocation standards. Given the way Californians live today, citizens, businesses, public safety agencies and government demand the latest technology and the highest speeds in wireless communications. A clear process is needed so network developers can plan appropriately and avoid unnecessary delays in delivering required cutting-edge services.
"Nearly a dozen states across the country have already moved to streamline the deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure to accommodate consumers' insatiable data demands and ready themselves for 5G wireless technology. It is imperative that California retain its position as a global leader in technology and innovation. SB 649 is a smart, cooperative approach that tells the rest of the country and the world that California is ready for investment and will retain its position as leader in innovation."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Chapter of the American Planning Association, the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, the Rural County Representatives of California, and the Urban Counties of California, in opposition, write, "Despite promises made by the wireless industry, the sponsor of SB 649, this bill fails to deliver on its most basic promises. Fundamentally, SB 649 seeks to eliminate public input, full local environmental and design review, mandate the leasing of publicly owned infrastructure and eliminate the ability for local governments to negotiate leases or any public benefit for the installation of 'small cell' equipment on taxpayer funded property. By changing the permitting process from discretionary (conditional-use permits) to a ministerial (building/encroachment permit) process, SB 649 would effectively eliminate the ability for constituents to have a say over the character of their own communities (except for coastal zone and registered historic district communities that are carved out). Most troubling is the shift of power from the community and its elected officials over to for-profit corporations for wireless equipment installations that can often be controversial. Understanding the need to close the digital divide and the many benefits from wireless technology, local elected officials often help balance these needs with the concerns from their residents. Local residents and businesses need their local governments to be equipped to respond when they have legitimate concerns, especially as they relate to the location and design of these installations near or adjacent to their property.
Additionally, as noted above, some opposition stems from the growth of radio frequency which would increase near homes under this bill.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 46-16, 9/13/17
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Bigelow, Bocanegra, Brough, Burke, Cervantes, Chávez, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kiley, Lackey, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron, Weber
NOES: Baker, Caballero, Chiu, Cooley, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Kalra, Levine, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk-Silva, Ridley-Thomas, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Calderon, Chau, Chu, Cunningham, Dahle, Friedman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Holden, Limón, Mullin, Reyes, Wood, Rendon
9/14/17 10:02:42
**** END ****
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 649
Author:(Hueso)
As Amended Ver:September 6, 2017
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 32-1
Committee | Votes | Ayes | Noes |
Local Government | 6-2 | Aguiar-Curry, Waldron, Gonzalez Fletcher, Grayson, Lackey, Voepel | Caballero, Ridley-Thomas |
Communications | 10-0 | Santiago, Obernolte, Bonta, Cervantes, Dababneh, Lackey, Low, Maienschein, Patterson, Wood | |
Appropriations | 12-1 | Gonzalez Fletcher, Bigelow, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Calderon, Eggman, Fong, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Obernolte, Reyes | Bloom |
SUMMARY: Establishes permitting and leasing requirements for small cells that cities and counties must follow and makes a number of other changes to law governing small cells. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires a small cell to be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to 2), below, if it satisfies the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in a public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use;
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and,
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Allows a city or a county to require that a small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
- Allows permits issued pursuant to 2), above, to be subject to the following:
- The same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner;
- A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) regulations concerning radio frequency emissions, as specified;
- A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this bill may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of rescission;
- A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county;
- Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements;
- A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell;
- A condition requiring compliance with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in public rights-of-way; and,
- A condition to indemnify a city, county, or city and county, against claims brought by third parties against the city, county, or city and county, associated with the installation of a small cell.
- Prohibits permits issued pursuant to 2), above, from being subject to any of the following conditions:
- Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space;
- The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this bill; and,
- Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller.
- Prohibits a city or county from imposing permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on communication cables strung between utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under these terms:
- Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees [subject to the requirements in 7), below], terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards; and,
- A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
- Provides that a city or county may charge the following fees:
- An annual charge not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure;
- An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
- The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any; and,
- The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate; and,
- A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
- Provides the following definitions for purposes of the annual attachment rate described in 7) b), above:
- "Annual costs of ownership" means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital costs shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell; and,
- "Usable space" means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
- Requires a city or a county to comply with the following before adopting or increasing the annual attachment rate described in 7) b), above:
- At least 14 days before the hearing described in c), below, the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered;
- At least 10 days before the hearing described in c), below, the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make vertical structures available for use under this bill if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate;
- The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentations relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act; and,
- The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting described in c), above.
- Requires a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee described in 7), above, to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee, as specified.
- Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to a rate, charge, term, or condition that is different from that established pursuant to the procedures in this bill, provided that either party may withdraw from negotiations seeking such an agreement by written notice.
- Prohibits a city or county from discriminating against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and requires a city or a county to make space available on property not located in public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
- Provides that this bill does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
- Provides that existing agreements with a wireless provider or its agent regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this bill remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates of this bill for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
- Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by existing law, as specified, on a local publicly owned electric utility.
- Provides that this bill does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utility's reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
- Requires a city or a county to consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this bill that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
- Provides that this bill shall not be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified, including, but not limited to, decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
- Provides that this bill shall not be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the PUC, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified, and shall not preclude a city or county from exercising authority granted to a local government to enforce state safety regulations.
- Requires, on or before July 1, 2019, and again on or before December 31, 2020, each wireless service provider to submit a report to the Legislature specifying the number of, and geographical location by ZIP Code of, the small cells that the wireless service provider has commenced operating within the state during the 18 months preceding the date of each report. In order to protect competitively sensitive information, the wireless service provider may aggregate and submit that information through a third party.
- Prohibits, with specified exceptions, a city or county from requiring a provider of video or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit to provide any communications services that are provided by a provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA), as specified, nor may a city or county require such a provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, assessment, or other charge not authorized by DIVCA.
- Provides the following definitions:
- "Feasible design and collocation standards" means reasonable and objective specifications concerning the physical structure, construction, location, and appearance of a small cell, provided that those specifications facilitate the installation of the small cell and may be waived by the city or county on a nondiscriminatory basis;
- "Micro wireless facility" means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches in length, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches;
- "Small cell" means a wireless telecommunications facility (as defined in existing law to mean equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services), or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
- The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether an array or separate;
- Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet;
- The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet;
- The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet; and,
- The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meters and any required pedestal; concealment elements; any telecommunications demarcation box; grounding equipment; power transfer switch; cutoff switch; vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services; and, equipment concealed within an existing building or structure;
- "Small cell" includes a micro wireless facility;
- "Small cell" does not include the following:
- Wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network;
- Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation;
- Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission; or,
- The underlying vertical infrastructure;
- "Vertical infrastructure" means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in public rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions. Facilities are "controlled" by a city or county if the city or county has the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground; and,
- "Wireless service provider" means a provider of "commercial mobile radio service" or "commercial mobile data service," as those terms are defined in Section 20.3 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, using spectrum radio frequencies licensed to it by the FCC or any successor agency.
- Finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
- Reaffirms local governments' historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally;
- Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern;
- Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small cells will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should be subject only to encroachment or building permits, or their functioning equivalents, while requiring providers to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal ADA and the PUC's General Order 95;
- Makes small cell installations on vertical infrastructure, and on property outside a public right-of-way, subject to feasible design and collations standards, including reasonable and objective specifications regarding the appearance and location of the small cell installation;
- Grants providers access to locally owned vertical infrastructure located within public rights-of-way under reasonable terms and conditions;
- Grants providers nondiscriminatory access to property owned or controlled by a local jurisdiction that is not in a public right-of-way and is already being used for comparable purposes under similar terms and conditions;
- Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching communications facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally, and of an additional charge of up to $250 for small cell attachments to vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by a city or county;
- Permits local governments to charge permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based;
- Preserves existing agreements between wireless service providers and local governments for the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure for small cell attachments;
- Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today; and,
- Limits the creation or erection of unreasonable requirements for access to public rights-of-way by communications providers, including excessive delays in negotiations and approvals for communications facilities.
- Further finds and declares that wireless service providers deploy small cells to areas based on demand for services regardless of the income characteristics of the areas, that this bill will complement efforts to close the digital divide by creating a framework that will incentivize private industry to invest or accelerate investment in the deployment of small cells, and that this bill will complement current state and federal government efforts to subsidize the deployment of broadband, including all of the following:
- The FCC's Mobility Fund II Program, a program to help expand mobile coverage across rural America and tribal lands by providing $4.5 billion in subsidies within the next 10 years;
- The Connect America Fund, a FCC program that expands access to voice and broadband services to unserved locations across the country; and,
- The California Advanced Services Fund, a program promoting, on a technologically neutral basis, the deployment of broadband infrastructure to unserved and underserved areas with a goal of providing broadband access to 98% of California households.
- Further finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this bill, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
- Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this bill, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown, potentially significant increased court costs resulting from actions challenging local ordinances or resolutions adopting attachment rate fees or fee increases.
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement. According to the author, "SB 649 recognizes the public-policy benefit and exploding consumer demand for greater, faster access to next-generation wireless networks – and establishes a reliable and standardized process for siting the physical infrastructure necessary to meet that demand. For California to remain technologically competitive and to ensure the benefits of innovation are reaching every community, we must do all we can – as fast as we can – to make next-generation 5G wireless networks a reality.
"In fact, recent studies have shown that widespread 5G investment in California will generate billions in economic growth and billions more in savings from wireless-enabled smart community solutions – lowered energy use, reduced traffic and fuel costs and improved public safety applications. But building the wireless network of tomorrow requires the rapid deployment of small cell structures. SB 649 does not affect the ability of local governments to manage its public rights of way or to impose reasonable fees, terms and conditions to access to city or county owned property. This bill is designed to benefit California consumers and businesses, who have overwhelmingly told us that they want California to stay at the forefront of the wireless economy."
This bill is sponsored by CTIA.
- Small Cells. According to an FCC report and order released in 2014, "The increasing demand for advanced wireless services and greater wireless bandwidth is driving an urgent and growing need for additional infrastructure deployment and new infrastructure technologies. To meet localized needs for coverage and increased capacity in outdoor and indoor environments, many wireless providers have turned in part to distributed antenna system (DAS) networks and small-cell technologies.
"Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network, typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Because these cells are significantly smaller in coverage area than traditional macrocells, networks that incorporate small-cell technology can reuse scarce wireless frequencies, thus greatly increasing spectral efficiency and data capacity within the network footprint. For example, deploying ten small cells in a coverage area that can be served by a single macrocell could result in a tenfold increase in capacity while using the same quantity of spectrum…
"(W)hereas small cells are usually operator-managed and support only a single wireless service provider, DAS networks can often accommodate multiple providers using different frequencies and/or wireless air interfaces. Small wireless technologies like DAS and small cells have a number of advantages over traditional macrocells. Because the facilities deployed at each node are physically much smaller than macrocell antennas and associated equipment and do not require the same elevation, they can be placed on light stanchions, utility poles, building walls and rooftops, and other small structures either privately owned or in the public rights-of-way. Thus, providers can deploy the technologies in geographic areas, such as densely populated urban areas, where traditional towers are not feasible or in areas, such as stadiums, where localized wireless traffic demands would require an unrealistic number of macrocells. In addition, because these technologies utilize small equipment and transmit at signal power levels much lower than macrocells, they can be deployed in indoor environments to improve interior wireless services…
"…DAS and small-cell deployments are a comparatively cost-effective way of addressing increased demand for wireless broadband services, particularly in urban areas. As a result, providers are rapidly increasing their use of these technologies, and the growth is projected to increase exponentially in the coming years. According to one estimate, more than 37 million small cells will be deployed by 2017…(and) one study projects that aggregate small-cell capacity will overtake macrocell capacity by 2016-2017. As they are increasingly relied upon, DAS and small-cell technologies are also posing new logistical deployment challenges. In particular, because individual DAS nodes and small cells cover small areas, providers must often deploy a substantial number of nodes to achieve the seamless coverage of a single macrocell."
- Federal Law Governing Wireless Siting by Local Governments. Two federal laws – the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and a portion of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 known as the "Spectrum Act" – require local governments to act within a "reasonable period of time" on permits for siting wireless facilities. The FCC is responsible for administering these laws. In 2009 and 2014, the FCC issued two decisions to clarify the definition of a period of time that is presumed to be reasonable for various categories of wireless telecommunications facilities. Specifically, the FCC established a shot clock by ruling that local governments should generally approve or disapprove applications for projects within the following time frames:
- 60 days for a project that is an "eligible facilities request," which is defined by the FCC as a collocation on an existing facility that does not substantially change its physical dimensions;
- 90 days for a project that is a collocation that substantially changes the dimensions of the facility, but does not substantially change its size; and,
- 150 days for projects that are new sites for wireless facilities.
In May of this year, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry to examine the regulatory impediments to wireless network infrastructure investment and deployment, looking specifically at how state and local processes affect the speed and cost of infrastructure deployment and asking for comment on improving state and local infrastructure reviews, such as zoning requests. Comments were due June 9th.
- State Law Governing Wireless Siting by Local Governments. Providers of wireless telecommunications services must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures or other wireless facilities that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Wireless carriers must also obtain local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on facilities where that equipment already exists, known as "collocations."
Telecommunications companies have the right to access utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles and municipal utility poles, providing the PUC the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Under this framework, telecommunications companies may erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but can regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the right of way under Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and 7901.1. In addition, investor-owned utilities and municipal utilities can only charge cost-based rates for attaching to their poles.
However, these restrictions do not apply to other infrastructure in the right of way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. These agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis and contain provisions that vary from locality to locality. In addition to the federal shot clock described above, AB 57 (Quirk), Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015, provided that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if a city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the FCC.
- Previous Legislation. AB 2788 (Gatto) of 2016 was similar to this bill. AB 2788 was held in the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee.
AB 57 (Quirk), Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015, provided that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if: a city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within the reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the FCC; all required public notices have been provided regarding the application; and, the applicant has provided a notice to the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed.
AB 162 (Holden) of 2013 would have prohibited a local government from denying an eligible facilities request, as defined, for a modification of an existing wireless telecommunications facility or structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the wireless telecommunications facility or structure, and would have required a local government to act on an eligible facilities request within 90 days of receipt. AB 162 was held in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
AB 1027 (Buchanan), Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011, required local publicly-owned electric utilities, including irrigation districts, to make appropriate space and capacity on and in their utility poles and support structures available for use by cable television corporations, video service providers, and telephone corporations.
SB 1627 (Kehoe), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2006, required local governments to administratively approve applications to place wireless communications equipment on structures where such equipment is already located if specified conditions have been met, and prohibited local governments from conditioning approval of applications for permits for wireless facilities in specified ways.
- Arguments in Support. CTIA, sponsor of this measure, in a coalition letter with the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, Crown Castle, the California Peace Officers Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, QualComm, the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the Congress of California Seniors, Tracfone, the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, CompTIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support, state, "Wireless technology has revolutionized our lives and the way that we communicate. It has transformed how our businesses and schools operate and improved how our cities function.
"Today, smartphones, laptops and tablets are basic tools in our everyday lives. In fact, there are more wireless devices in California than there are people. Further, mobile data usage has grown by more than 2,300% since 2010. To accommodate skyrocketing demand and prepare wireless networks for the next generation, those networks must be updated today. SB 649 will help make that happen. Small cell wireless facilities are being deployed today to meet this increased demand for data, enhancing capacity on today's 4G LTE wireless networks and establishing the backbone for the next generation of wireless networks, called 5G. 5G will offer the bandwidth to accommodate billions of devices at the speed required for our connected society.
"SB 649 is an essential measure to keep California at the leading edge of this new technology. Other states across the country and around the globe are already encouraging deployment of gigabit wireless internet by streamlining deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure. SB 649 will provide a clear path for California communities to deploy the needed infrastructure by asking for no public subsidies or use of taxpayer dollars. Instead, SB 649 simply asks for clear guidance for wireless providers to invest millions of dollars of their own money.
"By laying out a clear set of rules for all to follow, SB 649 will help communities:
- Open the path to California 'smart cities' with solutions delivering significant energy and transportation benefits and creating a more 'connected world';
- Provide up to 100 times faster speeds – gigabit internet in your pocket – enabling download of a full HD movie in seconds;
- Improve public safety services and help save lives with advanced communications and logistics and faster response times; and
- Create thousands of new jobs via infrastructure development and increased economic competitiveness.
"SB 649 creates a reliable set of guidelines for communities in making decisions on the deployment of small cell wireless technology with a process that reflects their much smaller size and footprint than traditional cell phone towers. It also ensures local governments retain oversight for health and safety conditions building and encroachment permits, local code compliance, and feasible design and collocation standards. Given the way Californians live today, citizens, businesses, public safety agencies and government demand the latest technology and the highest speeds in wireless communications. A clear process is needed so network developers can plan appropriately and avoid unnecessary delays in delivering required cutting-edge services.
"Nearly a dozen states across the country have already moved to streamline the deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure to accommodate consumers' insatiable data demands and ready themselves for 5G wireless technology. It is imperative that California retain its position as a global leader in technology and innovation. SB 649 is a smart, cooperative approach that tells the rest of the country and the world that California is ready for investment and will retain its position as leader in innovation."
- Arguments in Opposition. The California Chapter of the American Planning Association, the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, the Rural County Representatives of California, and the Urban Counties of California, in opposition, write, "Despite promises made by the wireless industry, the sponsor of SB 649, this bill fails to deliver on its most basic promises. Fundamentally, SB 649 seeks to eliminate public input, full local environmental and design review, mandate the leasing of publicly owned infrastructure and eliminate the ability for local governments to negotiate leases or any public benefit for the installation of 'small cell' equipment on taxpayer funded property.
"By changing the permitting process from discretionary (conditional-use permits) to a ministerial (building/encroachment permit) process, SB 649 would effectively eliminate the ability for constituents to have a say over the character of their own communities (except for coastal zone and registered historic district communities that are carved out). Most troubling is the shift of power from the community and its elected officials over to for-profit corporations for wireless equipment installations that can often be controversial. Understanding the need to close the digital divide and the many benefits from wireless technology, local elected officials often help balance these needs with the concerns from their residents. Local residents and businesses need their local governments to be equipped to respond when they have legitimate concerns, especially as they relate to the location and design of these installations near or adjacent to their property.
"While the wireless industry is fully capable of delivering cellular equipment that are truly small or discreet when they collaborate with local governments, the plain language of SB 649 gives the wireless industry allowances for extremely large equipment, 6 cubic feet worth of antennas and 21 cubic feet worth of equipment just on 'vertical (pole) infrastructure,' such as street and traffic lights. It also allows the industry to skip these sizes on the poles and instead place up to 35 cubic feet (about the size of a commercial refrigerator) worth of equipment on the ground for each provider on every pole. In addition to this equipment, there are exclusions for at least eight 'ancillary' pieces of equipment that have no size or quantity limitations. The innovative equipment we've been able to see in California would be effectively rolled back because local governments would no longer be able to require smaller and more discreet designs.
"In an unprecedented move, SB 649 forces local governments to lease out public property funded by the taxpayer so that wireless corporations can install their equipment to sell their private services. By eliminating fair market rate leases for use of taxpayer funded property (including city halls, parks, county libraries, and 'vertical pole infrastructure'), this bill effectively gives corporations discounted access to these facilities with no requirement to pass their cost-savings onto their customers. Only shareholders would potentially see returns from this sort of discounted access. Furthermore, rents from the use of public property, which every other for-profit business pays, help pay for essential public services, such as police, fire, libraries, and parks. SB 649 sets a dangerous precedent for other private industries to seek similar treatment, further eroding the ability to fund local services.
"As drafted, SB 649 would actually hurt efforts for deployment to rural, unserved, and underserved communities in this state that are still trying to close the digital divide in the 21st Century. The truth is SB 649 simply rewards the wireless industry for their existing behavior of deploying their technology only where it makes the most financial sense for them to do so. By eliminating fair market rates and setting up an arbitrary attachment rate of $250, wireless industry will get discounts well below market rate to more densely install their equipment where their customers are. As local leaders have testified, this cut-rate deal in the state's population hubs will actually make it more challenging for rural and unserved/underserved communities of this state to attract wireless deployment.
"As mentioned earlier, 'small cells' are not defined in this bill by any technology standard, but instead by the size of the equipment so long as it delivers 'licensed and/or unlicensed spectrum.' In other words, these antennas that would be installed could be for the technology already being deployed today, it could be for antennas that deliver Wi-Fi signals, or it could be for even more basic radio signals. The standards for 5G are still being developed and is years away from being a reality. Despite their most consistent promise, at least initially, 5G is never even mentioned in SB 649."
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0002073
Date of Hearing: August 23, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 649
Author:(Hueso) – As Amended Ver:July 18, 2017
Policy Committee: | Local Government | Vote: | 6 - 2 |
Communications and Conveyance | 10 - 0 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill generally changes the local government permitting process for small cell wireless facilities from discretionary to ministerial. Specifically, this bill:
- Provides that a small cell is a permitted use, subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county (See number 2), if the small cell meets the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use;
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and,
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Allows a city or a county to require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law. Allows permits issued pursuant to this requirement to be subject to the specified conditions and prohibits permits issued pursuant from being subject to specified requirements.
- Authorizes a city or county to charge the following fees:
- An annual fee of up to $250 for each small cell attachment to vertical infrastructure;
- An annual attachment rate based on a specified calculations; and
- A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs.
- Requires a specified local public process before a local government adopts an ordinance or resolution specifying or increasing the fee for the annual attachment rate.
- Specifies that nothing prohibits a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual charge or attachment rate different from the fees and rates established in the bill.
- Requires a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing the attachment rate to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee, as specified.
- Prohibits a city or county from imposing permitting requirements or fees on the installation, etc. of micro wireless facilities that are suspended on communication cables strung between existing utility poles as specified.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under specified terms.
- Provides various definitions. Exempts wireless facilities placed in historical districts or in the coastal zone from the definition of small cells.
- Clarifies laws, rules, and regulations regarding utility poles owned by electrical and telephone corporations. Clarifies laws regarding video and cable service providers regulated under the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act.
- Makes various legislative findings.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown, potentially significant increased court costs resulting from actions challenging local ordinances or resolutions adopting attachment rate fees or fee increases.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author, “SB 649 recognizes the public-policy benefit and exploding consumer demand for greater, faster access to next-generation wireless networks – and establishes a reliable and standardized process for siting the physical infrastructure necessary to meet that demand.”
- Background. The Planning and Zoning Law requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan and provides for the adoption of a zoning ordinance to regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, among other things. The Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits. Providers of wireless telecommunications services must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures to support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Similarly, wireless carriers must seek local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on structures and facilities where equipment already exists, which are referred to as collocations.
SB 1627 (Kehoe), Chapter. 676, Statutes of 2006, requires local governments to approve collocations ministerially, and prohibits local governments from limiting the duration of permits for wireless sites to less than 10 years absent a good reason. AB 57 (Quirk), Chapter 684, Statutes of 2015, specifies that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if a local government does not act on a permit application within a reasonable time period specified in federal regulations.
Telecommunications companies have the right to access utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state and federal regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility (IOU) poles and municipal utility poles, providing the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Telecommunications companies are authorized to erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates.
Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but existing law authorizes them to regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the public right-of-way. These restrictions do not apply to other publicly-owned infrastructure in the right-of-way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can continue to impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. Since the number of small cells needed to cover an area is much higher than for traditional wireless facilities, carriers and cities have negotiated agreements and streamlined permit processes for the deployment of small cells that require lease payments to use city infrastructure. Currently these agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis and lease rates can vary significantly from hundreds of dollars to as high as $15,000 per pole per year for microcell facilities with up to three antennae (City of Sacramento).
As a further example, the following cities have reported the following rates: a) City of Fresno, $1620 per pole per year; b) City of Los Angeles, $750 per cell per year; c) City and County of San Francisco, $4,000 per attachment per year; d) City of San Jose, $3,000 per attachment per year and e) Humboldt County, $2500 per month.
Local governments are concerned that this bill may be interpreted to allow current agreements for communications facilities to be discontinued and renegotiated under the new lower rates.
The author may wish to clarify that this bill only applies to new agreements made on equipment that has not been installed or for which has an agreement to be installed.
- Arguments in Support. This bill is supported by numerous businesses, economic development organizations, chambers of commerce, community organizations and individuals.
According to CTIA, the sponsor of the bill, “Wireless technology has revolutionized our lives and the way that we communicate […] To accommodate skyrocketing demand and prepare wireless networks for the next generation, those networks must be updated today. SB 649 will help make that happen […] SB 649 creates a reliable set of guidelines for communities in making decisions on the deployment of small cell wireless technology with a process that reflects their much smaller size and footprint than traditional cell phone towers. It also ensures local governments retain oversight for health and safety conditions, building and encroachment permits, local code compliance, and feasible design and collocation standards. Given the way Californians live today, citizens, businesses, public safety agencies and government demand the latest technology and the highest speeds in wireless communications. A clear process is needed so network developers can plan appropriately and avoid unnecessary delays in delivering required cutting-edge services.”
- Arguments in Opposition. This bill is opposed by hundreds of cities and counties, environmental and health organizations, and individuals. The basis of oppositions tends to fall into three categories: 1) local control; 2) technological concerns; and 3) health concerns.
Local governments are concerned about loss of local control and revenue. Most are opposed to the bill, however one coalition, Protect Our Local Streets, is opposed unless amended and is seeking amendments to exclude video services and restore other discretionary authority.
Other issues have been raised regarding liability, and the financial consequences. Liability issues raised have involved those of accidents involving the attachment of the facilities on local government property, as well as potential negative health impacts resulting from the electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) emitted by cellular phones and towers. Some argue this bill shifts liability to the state.
The author may wish to consider adding an amendment that requires the small cell applicant and city or county to contractually address the liability issue before the permit is issued.
Others, such as the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy, oppose this bill on technological grounds and suggest that only fiber-based broadband systems can overcome the access inequality and such systems are safer, and use less electricity.
Lastly, numerous health organizations and individuals are opposed to this bill because of the health impacts resulting from EMF.
According to Susan Foster, a medical writer who organized a brain study of California firefighters in 2004, the 2004 SPECT brain scan study of firefighters in Central California found brain abnormalities in all the men tested, as well as delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control and cognitive impairment. All the firefighters tested had suffered from sleep disturbances, headaches, lack of focus and memory loss following installation of a tower adjacent to their station five years earlier. This bill exempts fire stations from its provisions.
All the opposition groups agree that residents should have the opportunity to weigh-in at the local level regarding the siting of these facilities.
Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: July 12, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE
Miguel Santiago, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 649
Author:(Hueso) – As Amended Ver:July 3, 2017
SENATE VOTE: 32-1
SUBJECT: Wireless telecommunications facilities
SUMMARY: Makes numerous changes to the permitting and leasing process of small cell wireless facilities. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires a small cell to be permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county, as specified, if it satisfies the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use;
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and,
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Allows a city or county to require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued, as specified, for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframe required by state and federal law.
- Allows the specified issued permits to be subject to the following:
- The same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner;
- A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) regulations concerning radiation frequency emissions, as specified;
- A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, a specified applicant may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of rescission;
- A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county;
- Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements;
- A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell; and,
- A condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the rights-of-way.
- Prohibits specified issued permits from being subject to:
- Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space;
- The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, as specified;
- Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller; and,
- The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
- Prohibits a city or county from imposing permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under the following terms:
- Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, subject to specified requirements, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards; and,
- A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
- Provides a city or county may charge the following fees:
- An annual charge not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure;
- An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
- The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any; and,
- The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate.
- A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
- Provides the following definitions, as specified:
- “Annual cost of ownership” means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital cost shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell.
- “Usable space” means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
- Requires a city or county to comply with the following before adopting or increasing the rate, as specified:
- At least 14 days before the specified hearing, the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered;
- At least 10 days before the specified hearing, the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make the specified vertical structures available for use if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate;
- The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentation relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act; and,
- The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting, as specified.
- Requires a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a specified fee, to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee, as specified.
- Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual charge or attachment rate that is different from the fees or rates established above.
- Prohibits a city or county from discriminating against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and shall make space available on property not located in the public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
- Provides that this bill does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
- Provides that existing agreements regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date, as specified, remains in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions. The operator of a small cell may accept the rates, as specified, for small cells that are the subject of an application submitted after the agreement is terminated pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
- Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by existing law on a local publicly owned electric utility (POU).
- Provides that this bill does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a POU’s reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
- Requires a city or county to consult with the utility director of a POU when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this bill that impact the POU.
- Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified, including, but not limited to, decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
- Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the CPUC, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
- Prohibits a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulations on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and may not regulate any communications services or impose or collect any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law, as specified.
- Provides the following definitions:
- “Micro wireless facility” means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.
- “Small cell” means a wireless telecommunications facility, as specified, or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
- The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether an array or separate;
- Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet;
- The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet;
- The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet;
- The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume:
- Electric meters and any required pedestal;
- Concealment elements;
- Any telecommunications demarcation box;
- Grounding equipment;
- Power transfer switch;
- Cutoff switch;
- Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services; and,
- Equipment concealed within an existing building or structure.
- “Small cell” includes a micro wireless facility.
- “Small cell” does not include the following:
- Wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network;
- Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation;
- Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission; and
- The underlying vertical infrastructure.
- “Vertical infrastructure” means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions. The term “controlled” means having the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
- Finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
- Reaffirms local governments’ historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally;
- Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern;
- Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review;
- Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved;
- Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis;
- Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public rights-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including CPUC General Order 95;
- Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally;
- Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based; and,
- Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
- Finds and declares that small cells, as specified, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair, as specified, but are a matter of statewide concern.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the CPUC to establish and enforce the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments and rearrangements, as specified, whenever a public utility and a cable television corporation or association of cable television corporations are unable to agree upon the terms, conditions, or annual compensation for pole attachments or the terms, conditions, or costs of rearrangements. (Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 767.5)
- Authorizes a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. (California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7)
- Establishes a framework, process, fees, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to municipal utility poles, providing for safety and reasonable terms and conditions. (PUC Section 9510, et seq.)
- Authorizes a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, to be subject to a city or county discretionary permit issued on or after January 1, 2007, as specified. (PUC Section 65850.6)
- Provides that a wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies specified requirements. (Government Code (GOV) Section 65850.6)
- Provides that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility shall be deemed approved if all specified requirements occur. (GOV Section 65964.1)
- Authorizes telegraph or telephone corporations to construct lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within the state, and may erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. (PUC Section 7901)
- Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature, as specified, that municipalities shall have the right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed, as specified. (PUC Section 7901.1)
- Requires the CPUC, whenever a public utility and a cable television corporation or association of cable television corporations are unable to agree upon the terms, conditions, or annual compensation for pole attachments or the terms, conditions, or costs of rearrangements, to establish and enforce the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments and rearrangements, as specified. (PUC Section 767.5)
- Establishes a framework, process, fees, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to municipal utility poles, providing for safety and reasonable terms and conditions. (PUC Section 9510, et seq.)
- Establishes the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA), which creates a mechanism for a state-issued franchise for the provision of cable and video service in California. (PUC Section 5800, et seq.)
- Limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by the city or county, as specified. (GOV Section 65850.6)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
- Authors Statement: According to the author, “SB 649 recognizes the public-policy benefit and exploding consumer demand for greater, faster access to next-generation wireless networks – and establishes a reliable and standardized process for siting the physical infrastructure necessary to meet that demand. For California to remain technologically competitive and to ensure the benefits of innovation are reaching every community, we must do all we can – as fast as we can – to make next-generation 5G wireless networks a reality. In fact, recent studies have shown that widespread 5G investment in California will generate billions in economic growth and billions more in savings from wireless-enabled smart community solutions – lowered energy use, reduced traffic and fuel costs and improved public safety applications. But building the wireless network of tomorrow requires the rapid deployment of small cell structures. SB 649 does not affect the ability of local governments to manage its public rights-of-way or to impose reasonable fees, terms and conditions to access to city or county owned property. This bill is designed to benefit California consumers and businesses, who have overwhelmingly told us that they want California to stay at the forefront of the wireless economy.”
- Background: Small cells are low-powered radio access devices that are used to increase cellular network capacity in shorter ranges and more concentrated areas. With the continuing demand for wireless devices, the ability to satisfy subscriber performance expectations will depend on the ability of the existing infrastructure of large macrocell towers to support an increasingly demanding network. Unlike, large macrocell towers, which can be over 200 feet tall, small cells are about 40 feet tall and can be used to provide connectivity to subscribers in areas that might be difficult to reach, such as areas with coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Small cells can augment an existing coverage area by reusing scarce wireless frequencies to deliver greater connectivity.
- 5G Deployment: Small cells are needed to support the deployment of fifth generation mobile technology (5G) that will provide mobile speeds of up to 100 times faster than the current network. The 5G network deployment will involve 10 to 100 times more antenna locations than the current network. The growth of wireless broadband service is widely expected to continue due to the increasing use of high-bandwidth applications such as mobile streaming, the greater expected capacity of 5G service, and the deployment of the Internet of Things. In order to provide for such demands, providers of wireless telecommunications services will need to seek local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment, such as antennas and related devices, on facilities where equipment already exists. Hence, policymakers must consider how best to find a balance between preserving local control while reducing the impediments to broadband deployment.
- Barriers to Deployment: Over the years, the process within which local governments were required to approve or deny development projects were seen as prohibitory and acted to stifle the growth or development of infrastructure. In an attempt to remedy such situations, a number of federal and state laws were passed in an attempt to expedite the permitting process. In 1977, the Legislature passed the Permit Streamlining Act which required public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits. In addition, in 1978, Congress enacted the Pole Attachment Act of 1978, to ensure that telephone companies and electric utilities would not stifle the growth of the then-fledgling cable television industry by charging excessive rates for essential pole attachments. The Pole Attachment Act did not require utilities to give cable operators access to their facilities but merely limited the rates they could charge if they chose to give such access. Furthermore, the FCC reformed its pole attachment rules in 2011 for regulated utilities to streamline access and reduce costs for attaching broadband lines and wireless antennas to utility poles.
In addition, as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress sought to counteract delays in local governments’ consideration of wireless facility siting applications, which may delay timely rollout and deployment of wireless service. In 2012, Congress took additional steps to streamline the process by enacting the Spectrum Act, which provided that a local government may not deny, and shall approve, an application to deploy or modify certain types of wireless facilities within a certain timeline. In April 2017, the FCC opened a proceeding to identify and address unnecessary regulatory barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment to further promote the rapid deployment of advanced wireless broadband services.
In California, the Legislature enacted SB 1627 (Kehoe), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2006, which required local governments to approve collocations through ministerial processes, and prohibited local governments from limiting the duration of permits for wireless sites to less than 10 years, absent good reasons. In addition, in 2015, the Legislature passed AB 57 (Quirk), Chapter 684, Statutes of 2015, which specified that a collocation or siting application for a wireless communications facility was deemed approved if a local government did not act on a permit application within a reasonable timeframe. Such measures were meant to serve as a strong incentive to resolve each application within a reasonable timeframe in order to prevent the stifling of communications services deployment.
- Local Control: Article XI of the California Constitution authorizes a city or county to make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. This is known as the police power of cities which gives local governments the authority to regulate behaviors, business operations, and land uses. Such powers are used by local agencies for purposes of abating nuisances and protecting public health, safety and welfare. Wireless telecommunications service providers must obtain permits from cities and counties to build structures or place wireless facilities on a local government’s vertical infrastructure, such as light poles and streetlights in the rights-of-way, to support their network. They must also obtain local approval to collocate additional telecommunications equipment on existing facilities.
Currently, such permits are negotiated on an ad hoc basis between local governments and telecommunications service providers. In such cases, local governments can impose conditions and negotiate payments for the use of their vertical infrastructures. Hence, such lease rates can vary significantly among cities from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars per pole. Arguably, with the deployment of 5G, the need, and potentially costs, for telecommunications companies to access local government infrastructure will vastly increase. Proponents of this bill estimate a need to deploy 30,000-50,000 small cells statewide over the next five to seven years to meet growing customer demand.
Whereas local governments currently have discretion to lease out its vertical infrastructure, this bill establishes a small cell wireless facilities permitting and leasing process that local governments must adhere to. This bill requires small cells to be permitted use, as specified, if it satisfies the following requirements: the small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use; the small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the ADA, and the small cell is not located on a fire department facility. In addition, the bill authorizes a city or county to require the small cell to be approved pursuant to a building permit, encroachment permit, and any additional ministerial permits, as specified. Furthermore, a city or county is prohibited from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure, as specified, and must make available its vertical infrastructure to the placement of small cell under fair and reasonable fees, as specified. A city or county may reserve capacity on its vertical infrastructure if it adopts a resolution finding, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses, as specified.
The bill establishes permit requirements in which a telecommunications service provider may and may not be subject to. Permit requirements established under this bill may be subjected to the following: same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner; requirements to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with FCC regulations concerning radio frequency emissions, as specified; a condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year, as specified; a condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county; compliance with building codes; a condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell; and a condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the rights-of way.
Permit requirements established under this bill may not be subject to the following: requirements to provide additional services, as specified; the submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, as specified; limitation on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller; the regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
Opponents of the bill argue that this bill eliminates its permitting authority and strips away its ability to control access to their own property. Although this bill only applies to the placement of small cell facilities, it arguably limits local government’s flexibility to negotiate access to its vertical infrastructure for small cells. Proponents argue that local governments will still have the ability to enforcement encroachment and building permits, building codes, design and collocation standards, and undergrounding requirements. However, opponents argue that the authorization given to cities or counties under this bill to require building, encroachment, or any additional ministerial permits as a condition of approval, in fact provides local governments with no discretionary review or ability to request changes as long as the small cell meets the existing building code standards and falls within the definition of a small cell, including its size, as defined under this bill.
- Access to Utility Poles: Telecommunications companies have the right to access utility poles in the public rights-of-way. Current law establishes a framework, process, and procedure governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to utility poles. The CPUC establishes and enforces rates, terms and conditions for pole attachment. This includes compliance with CPUC General Order 95 which establishes rules for overhead electric line construction, including requirements for communication lines. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but can regulate the time, manner and place of pole attachments in the rights-of-way. Unlike local government owned infrastructure in the rights-of-way, under current law, telecommunications companies may build structures or collocate wireless facilities on investor-owned utility (IOU) and POU poles under specified cost-based rates.
This bill specifies that nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an IOU or telephone corporation, as well as any applicable rules adopted by the CPUC, including General Order 95 requirements, as specified. In addition, this bill specifies that it does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a POU’s reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
- Cost-Based Rates: In 2011, the Legislature passed AB 1027 (Buchanan), Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011, which required POUs to make appropriate space and capacity on and in their utility pole and support structure available for use by a communications service provider pursuant to reasonable terms and conditions. At the time, POUs had the sole discretion over the rates they charged communications service providers for pole attachments. AB 1027 created a process for POUs to determine pole attachment rates.
AB 1027 limited the amount a POU could charge for the use of a utility pole by a communications service provider to not exceed an amount determined by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the pole and its supporting anchor. In addition, the annual fee charged by a POU for use of a support structure by a communications service provider cannot exceed the POUs annual costs of ownership of the percentage of the volume of the capacity of the structure rendered unusable by the equipment of the communications service provider.
This bill establishes a process for city or counties to determine pole attachment rates similar to those established under AB 1027. This includes an annual charge not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to a city or county’s vertical infrastructure, an annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from specified requirements, and a one-time reimbursement fee for actual cost incurred by the city or county for rearrangement performed at the request of the small cell provider. In addition, this bill specifies that it does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual charge or attachment rate that is different from the specified fees or rates established under this bill.
In addition, proponents of this bill argue that lease cost, including in kind items such as free Wi-Fi or other contributions – that cities and counties demand in agreements with wireless service providers are barriers to their ability to meet their customer demand. Although the deployment of greater wireless telecommunications service infrastructure could provide benefits to local government and its residents, local officials are empowered to balance these competing considerations by charging what the market will bear for the use of their property and by revising their permitting program to make it easier on carriers, while keeping in mind that they risk losing access to such services. For example, in June 2017, the City of Sacramento, agreed to a public-private partnership with Verizon in which the City agreed to improve zoning and permitting processes to make the deployment of necessary infrastructure quicker and more efficient, in exchange for certain in-kind contributions such as free Wi-Fi to select parks and civic centers, as well as implementing public safety and education programs.
- Technology Neutral: Unlike telephone corporations, cable and video service providers are regulated through DIVCA. DIVCA requires cable and video providers to obtain a franchise license from the CPUC to provide service. Holders of state-issued franchises must pay the local government a rent or toll in the form of a “franchise fee” for the use of the public rights-of-way. Such providers operate micro wireless facilities, which are small cells that are smaller than the small cells used by telephone corporations defined under this bill. This bill prohibits a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of way by a provider authorized to operate in the rights-of-way and may not regulate any communications services or impose, collect any tax, fee, or change, not specifically authorized under state law. In addition, this bill specifies that it does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
The author may wish to consider an amendment to clarify that such prohibition applies specifically to facilities that have franchises under DIVCA, so such providers are not charged more than once for the use of micro wireless facilities, and that such provisions do not interfere with other provisions related to pole attachment agreements in the bill.
Furthermore, there are concerns that although this bill expedites the permitting process and caps fees for wireless small cell deployment, it might result in delays and increase cost for wireline providers. Because wireline providers must still obtain permits from local governments under conditions not covered under this bill, there are concerns that this bill could have an adverse impact on the state’s overall goals of expanding broadband access throughout the state.
The author may wish to consider an amendment to make the intent language in this bill more technology neutral.
- Health Concerns: There have also been a number of groups and individuals who have expressed concerns about the health effects of radio frequency emissions, and argue that the rapid proliferation of small cells and wireless technology promoted under this bill would further exacerbate such effects. Current state and federal law limits the consideration of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by states and local governments in so far as a proposed project is in compliance with FCC requirements. The FCC is tasked with evaluating the effects of radio frequency emissions on the quality of the human environment, and establishes safety rules relating to radio frequency emissions from radio transmitters. This bill requires that small cells are permitted if it complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations. In addition, small cell permit requirements established under this bill may be subject to a requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with FCC regulation concerning radio frequency emissions.
- Arguments in Support: According to CTIA, the sponsor of the bill, “Wireless technology has revolutionized our lives and the way that we communicate […] To accommodate skyrocketing demand and prepare wireless networks for the next generation, those networks must be updated today. SB 649 will help make that happen […] SB 649 creates a reliable set of guidelines for communities in making decisions on the deployment of small cell wireless technology with a process that reflects their much smaller size and footprint than traditional cell phone towers. It also ensures local governments retain oversight for health and safety conditions, building and encroachment permits, local code compliance, and feasible design and collocation standards. Given the way Californians live today, citizens, businesses, public safety agencies and government demand the latest technology and the highest speeds in wireless communications. A clear process is needed so network developers can plan appropriately and avoid unnecessary delays in delivering required cutting-edge services.”
- Arguments in Opposition: According to the League of California Cities, “[SB 649] would represent a major shift in telecommunications policy and law by requiring local governments to lease out the public’s property, cap how much cities can lease this space out for, eliminate the ability for cities to negotiate public benefits, eliminate the public’s input and full discretionary review in all communities of the state except for areas in coastal zones and historic districts, for the installation of ‘small cell’ wireless equipment […] Cities and local governments recognize that the wireless industry offers many benefits in our growing economy, but a balance with community impacts must also be preserved. SB 649, however, is the wrong approach and benefits corporate bottom lines rather than communities. The bill undermines our ability to ensure our residents have a voice and get a fair return for any use of public infrastructure. Residents that don’t happen to live in a coastal zone or in a historic district will have to wonder why their communities deserve such second-tier status.”
- Suggested Amendment:
SECTION 1: (g) Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless communications facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally.
(h) Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based.
(j) Limits the creation or erection of any unreasonable requirement for access to the public rights-of-way by communications providers, including excessive delays in negotiations and approvals for communications facilities.
65964.2 (b) (3) (D) The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
65964.2 (b) (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a A city or county shall not impose permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on communication cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
65964.5 Except as provided in Sections 65964, 65964.2, and 65850.6, or as specifically required by state law, a city or county may not adopt or enforce any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and may not regulate any communications services or impose or collect any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law. require a provider of video or cable service to obtain any additional authorization or permit to provide any communications services that is provided by a provider that holds a franchise pursuant to the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, as amended (PUC Section 5800 et seq.) nor may a city or county require such a provider of video or cable service to pay any tax, fee, or assessment, not authorized by the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, as amended.
- Related Legislation: ACR 62 (Quirk) of 2017 urges policymakers in federal, state, and local government to work in cooperation with one another to establish technology neutral policies and modernize and streamline the processes that will enable rapid deployment of the small cell wireless infrastructure that supports 5G wireless. Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State – Resolution Chapter 93, Statutes of 2017.
- Prior Legislation: AB 57 (Quirk) of 2015 required a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility to be deemed approved, if specified conditions are met, and applies these provisions to all counties and cities, including charter cities. Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State – Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015.
AB 1027 (Buchanan) of 2011 required POUs, including irrigation districts, to make appropriate space and capacity on and in their utility poles and support structures available for use by cable television corporations, video service providers, and telephone corporations. Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State – Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011.
AB 2987 (Nunez & Levine) of 2006 established DVICA, which created a mechanism for a state-issued franchise for the provision of cable and video service in California. Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State – Chapter 700, Statutes of 2006.
SB 1627 (Kehoe) of 2006 required local governments to administratively approve applications to place wireless communications equipment on structures where such equipment is already located if specified conditions have been met, and prohibits local governments from conditioning approval of applications for permits for wireless facilities in specified ways. Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State – Chapter 676, Statutes of 2006.
- Double-referral: This bill is double referred, having been previously heard by the Assembly Committee on Local Government on June 28, 2017, and approved on a 6-2 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
CTIA (sponsor)
59DaysOfCode
Aerofund Financial
American Indian Chamber of Commerce of California
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association
Asian Resources Inc.
AT&T
Bell Canyon Homeowners Association
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce
Black Business Association
CalAsian Chamber of Commerce
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Foundation for Independent Living Center
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Probation, Parole & Correctional Association
California State Conference of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People
California State Sheriffs Association
California Utilities Emergency Association
California Urban Partnership
CALinnovates
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce
Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Claypool Consulting
Cleantech San Diego
Community Women Vital Voices
CompTIA
Concerned Citizens Community Involvement
Congress of California Seniors
Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership
Council for Cross Cultural Affairs
Crown Castle
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Downtown San Diego Partnership
East Bay Leadership Council
Elderly Foundation
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
El Dorado Fire Department
Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow
Fresno Center for New Americans
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Fresno County Economic Development Corporation
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Los Angeles African-American Chamber of Commerce
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce
Hacker Lab
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Sonoma County
Hispanic Heritage Foundation
Improve Your Tomorrow
Inland Empire Economic Partnership
Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group
Invictus Foundation
Jobs and Housing Coalition
Korean American Coalition
Latin Business Association
Latino Service Providers Sonoma County
Lifestyle Stroke Foundation
Lighthouse Counseling & Family Resource Center
Lime Foundation
Lincoln Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Marjaree Mason Center
Meeting of the Minds
Mendocino Community College
Monterey County Business Council
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People – Riverside
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professional – Sacramento
National Association of Women Business Owners
National Latina Business Women Association of Los Angeles
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Organization of Chinese Americans – Sacramento
Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
Pasadena Chamber of Commerce
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Poway Chamber of Commerce
Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center
PulsePoint
Quail Lodge & Golf Club
Qualcomm
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Russian American Media
Sabio Enterprises Inc.
Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps
Saint John’s Program for Real Change
Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund
San Anselmo Community Foundation
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Pride Center
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Slavic American Chamber of Commerce
Society for the Blind
Southeast Community Development Corporation
Southern California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California
Sprint
Sunny Hills Services
T-Mobile
TechNet
TELACU Education Foundation
The Arc of Alameda County
The Observer Media Group
Touro University California
Tracfone
Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
United Way Fresno and Madera Counties
Untied Women’s Organization
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Verizon
Vietnamese American Chamber of Commerce
Voluntary Organizations Active in a Disaster
WEAVE, Inc.
WhizGirls Academy
Wireless Infrastructure Association
Women’s Intercultural Network
Weingart East LA YMCA
Individual letters (12)
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter
As You Sow
Association of California Cities – Orange County
BabySafe Project
Bay Area Educators For Safe Tech
Brentwood Community Council
California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (unless amended)
California Brain Tumor Association
California Contract Cities Association
California Parks & Recreation Society
California State Association of Counties
Center for Environmental Health
Cities of: Alameda, Albany, Aliso Viejo, American Canyon, Arcadia, Azusa, Bakersfield,
Bellflower, Benicia, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Big Bear Lake, Brawley, Brentwood, Buena Park, Burbank, Calabasas, Camarillo, Capitola, Carpinteria, Chino, Chino Hills, Chula Vista, Citrus Heights, Claremont, Clayton, Clearlake, Cloverdale, Colfax, Concord, Corona Costa, Mesa, Capitola, Culver City, Cupertino, Cypress, Danville, Davis, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Dublin, Eastvale, El Centro, Elk Grove, Encinitas, Escalon, Fairfax, Farmersville, Fontana, Fortuna, Foster City, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Fresno, Garden Grove, Goleta, Gustine, Hanford, Hayward, Hemet, Hermosa Beach, Hesperia, Highland, Huntington Beach, Huntington Park, Indian Wells, Indio, Inglewood, Irvine, Jurupa Valley, King City, La Canada Flintridge, La Mirada, La Quinta, Lafayette, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lake Elsinore, Lakeport, Lakewood, Lathrop, Laverne, Livermore, Lodi, Lomita, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles, Los Banos, Mammoth Lakes, Manhattan Beach, Manteca, Martinez, Merced, Mill Valley, Menifee, Mission Viejo, Modesto, Monrovia, Montclair, Monterey, Moreno Valley, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Murrieta, National City, Nevada City, Norco, Norwalk, Oakdale, Oakland, Oakley, Oceanside, Ontario, Orland, Pacific Grove, Palm Desert, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Paso Robles, Petaluma, Pico Rivera, Piedmont, Pinole, Placentia, Placerville, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Point Arena, Pomona, Rancho Cordova, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ripon, Riverbank, Riverside, Rocklin, Rohnert Park, Rosemead, Roseville, Salinas, San Buenaventura, San Carlos, San Gabriel, San Jose, San Leandro, San Marcos, San Marino, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Clarita, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Maria, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Santee, Scotts Valley, Shasta Lake, Signal Hill, Simi Valley, South Pasadena, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Turlock, Ukiah, Upland, Vacaville, Vallejo ,Vernon, Victorville, Vista, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, Whittier, Yuba City, Yucca Valley, and Yucaipa
City and County of San Francisco
Citizens for Health
Consumers for Safe Cell Phones
Counties of: Butte, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Orange, Placer, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, and Stanislaus
Ecological Options Network
EM-Radiation Research Trust
EMF Safety Network
Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Working Group
Frontier Communications (unless amended)
Green Sangha
Greenlining Institute
League of California Cities
Marin Telecommunications Agency
Moms Advocating Sustainability
Municipal Information Systems Association of California
MuniServices
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Protect Our Local Streets (unless amended)
Physicians for Safe Technology
Rural County Representatives of California
Sacramento Smart Meter Awareness
Sage Associates
Seniors for Environmental Awareness
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Town of Apple Valley
Town of Colma
Town of Hillsborough
Town of Los Gatos
Town of Moraga
Town of San Anselmo
Town of Yountville
Urban Counties of California
Weston A. Price Foundation for Wise Traditions – Chico Chapter
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
Individual Letters (34)
Analysis Prepared by: Edmond Cheung / C. & C. / (916) 319-2637
REVISED (opposition update)
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 649
Author:(Hueso) – As Amended Ver:June 20, 2017
SENATE VOTE: 32-1
SUBJECT: Wireless telecommunications facilities.
SUMMARY: Establishes permitting and leasing requirements for small cell wireless facilities that cities and counties must follow, requires cities and counties to automatically renew permits for wireless facilities generally, and makes a number of other changes to law governing small cell wireless facilities. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires a small cell to be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to 2), below, if it satisfies the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use;
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and,
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Allows a city or a county to require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
- Allows permits issued pursuant to 2), above, to be subject to the following:
- The same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner;
- A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) regulations concerning radio frequency emissions, as specified;
- A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this section may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of rescission;
- A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county;
- Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements;
- A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell; and,
- A condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the rights-of-way.
- Prohibits permits issued pursuant to 2), above, from being subject to:
- Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space;
- The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this bill;
- Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller; and,
- The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
- Prohibits a city or county from imposing permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under these terms:
- Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees [subject to the requirements in 7), below], terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards; and,
- A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
- Provides that a city or county may charge the following fees:
- An annual administrative permit fee not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure; and,
- An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
- The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any; and,
- The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate; and,
- A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
- Provides the following definitions for purposes of the annual attachment rate described in 7) b), above:
- "Annual costs of ownership" means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital costs shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell; and,
- "Usable space" means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
- Requires a city or a county to comply with the following before adopting or increasing the rate described in 7) b), above:
- At least 14 days before the hearing described in c), below, the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered;
- At least 10 days before the hearing described in c), below, the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make vertical structures available for use under this bill if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate;
- The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentations relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act); and,
- The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting described in c), above.
- Requires a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee described in 7), above, to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee, as specified.
- Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual administrative permit fee or attachment rate that is less than the fees or rates established in this bill.
- Prohibits a city or county from discriminating against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and requires a city or a county to make space available on property not located in the public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
- Provides that this bill does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
- Provides that existing agreements between a wireless service provider, or its agents and assigns, and a city, a county, or a city or county’s agents and assigns, regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination or other provisions in the existing agreement, or unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties. A wireless service provider may require the rates of this section for new small cells sites that are deployed after the operative date of this section in accordance with applicable change of law provisions in the existing agreements.
- Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by existing law on a local publicly owned electric utility.
- Provides that this bill does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utility’s reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
- Requires a city or a county to consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this bill that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
- States that, except as provided in 1) through 5), above, nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified, including, but not limited to, decisions of the PUC adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
- Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
- Prohibits a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and from regulating any communications services or imposing or collecting any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law, with specified exceptions.
- Amends existing law that governs permits for wireless telecommunications facilities (not just small cells), which allows cities and counties to limit permits to 10 years, by requiring permits to be renewed for equivalent durations, unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
- Provides the following definitions:
- "Micro wireless facility" means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches;
- "Small cell" means a wireless telecommunications facility (as defined in existing law to mean equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services), or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
- The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether an array or separate;
- Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet;
- The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet;
- The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet; and,
- The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meters and any required pedestal; concealment elements; any telecommunications demarcation box; grounding equipment; power transfer switch; cutoff switch; vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services; and, equipment concealed within an existing building or structure;
- "Small cell" includes a micro wireless facility;
- "Small cell" does not include the following:
- Wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network;
- Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation;
- Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission; or,
- The underlying vertical infrastructure.
- "Vertical infrastructure" means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions. The term "controlled" means having the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
- Finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
- Reaffirms local governments’ historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally;
- Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern;
- Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review;
- Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved;
- Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis;
- Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public rights-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95;
- Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally;
- Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based; and,
- Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
- Finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this bill, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
- Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement. According to the author, "SB 649 recognizes the public-policy benefit and exploding consumer demand for greater, faster access to next-generation wireless networks – and establishes a reliable and standardized process for siting the physical infrastructure necessary to meet that demand. For California to remain technologically competitive and to ensure the benefits of innovation are reaching every community, we must do all we can – as fast as we can – to make next-generation 5G wireless networks a reality.
"In fact, recent studies have shown that widespread 5G investment in California will generate billions in economic growth and billions more in savings from wireless-enabled smart community solutions – lowered energy use, reduced traffic and fuel costs and improved public safety applications. But building the wireless network of tomorrow requires the rapid deployment of small cell structures. SB 649 does not affect the ability of local governments to manage its public rights of way or to impose reasonable fees, terms and conditions to access to city or county owned property. This bill is designed to benefit California consumers and businesses, who have overwhelmingly told us that they want California to stay at the forefront of the wireless economy."
This bill is sponsored by CTIA.
- Small Cells. According to an FCC report and order released in 2014, "The increasing demand for advanced wireless services and greater wireless bandwidth is driving an urgent and growing need for additional infrastructure deployment and new infrastructure technologies. To meet localized needs for coverage and increased capacity in outdoor and indoor environments, many wireless providers have turned in part to distributed antenna system (DAS) networks and small-cell technologies.
"Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network, typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Because these cells are significantly smaller in coverage area than traditional macrocells, networks that incorporate small-cell technology can reuse scarce wireless frequencies, thus greatly increasing spectral efficiency and data capacity within the network footprint. For example, deploying ten small cells in a coverage area that can be served by a single macrocell could result in a tenfold increase in capacity while using the same quantity of spectrum…
"(W)hereas small cells are usually operator-managed and support only a single wireless service provider, DAS networks can often accommodate multiple providers using different frequencies and/or wireless air interfaces. Small wireless technologies like DAS and small cells have a number of advantages over traditional macrocells. Because the facilities deployed at each node are physically much smaller than macrocell antennas and associated equipment and do not require the same elevation, they can be placed on light stanchions, utility poles, building walls and rooftops, and other small structures either privately owned or in the public rights-of-way. Thus, providers can deploy the technologies in geographic areas, such as densely populated urban areas, where traditional towers are not feasible or in areas, such as stadiums, where localized wireless traffic demands would require an unrealistic number of macrocells. In addition, because these technologies utilize small equipment and transmit at signal power levels much lower than macrocells, they can be deployed in indoor environments to improve interior wireless services…
"…DAS and small-cell deployments are a comparatively cost-effective way of addressing increased demand for wireless broadband services, particularly in urban areas. As a result, providers are rapidly increasing their use of these technologies, and the growth is projected to increase exponentially in the coming years. According to one estimate, more than 37 million small cells will be deployed by 2017…(and) one study projects that aggregate small-cell capacity will overtake macrocell capacity by 2016-2017. As they are increasingly relied upon, DAS and small-cell technologies are also posing new logistical deployment challenges. In particular, because individual DAS nodes and small cells cover small areas, providers must often deploy a substantial number of nodes to achieve the seamless coverage of a single macrocell."
- Federal Law Governing Wireless Siting by Local Governments. Two federal laws – the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and a portion of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 known as the "Spectrum Act" – require local governments to act within a "reasonable period of time" on permits for siting wireless facilities. The FCC is responsible for administering these laws. In 2009 and 2014, the FCC issued two decisions to clarify the definition of a period of time that is presumed to be reasonable for various categories of wireless telecommunications facilities. Specifically, the FCC established a shot clock by ruling that local governments should generally approve or disapprove applications for projects within the following time frames:
- 60 days for a project that is an "eligible facilities request," which is defined by the FCC as a collocation on an existing facility that does not substantially change its physical dimensions;
- 90 days for a project that is a collocation that substantially changes the dimensions of the facility, but does not substantially change its size; and,
- 150 days for projects that are new sites for wireless facilities.
In May of this year, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry to examine the regulatory impediments to wireless network infrastructure investment and deployment, looking specifically at how state and local processes affect the speed and cost of infrastructure deployment and asking for comment on improving state and local infrastructure reviews, such as zoning requests. Comments were due June 9th.
- State Law Governing Wireless Siting by Local Governments. Providers of wireless telecommunications services must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures or other wireless facilities that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Wireless carriers must also obtain local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on facilities where that equipment already exists, known as "collocations."
Telecommunications companies have the right to access utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles and municipal utility poles, providing the PUC the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Under this framework, telecommunications companies may erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but can regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the right of way under Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code. In addition, investor-owned utilities and municipal utilities can only charge cost-based rates for attaching to their poles.
However, these restrictions do not apply to other infrastructure in the right of way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. These agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis and contain provisions that vary from locality to locality.
In addition to the federal shot clock described above, AB 57 (Quirk), Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015, provided that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if a city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the FCC.
- Stated Need for This Bill. The proponents of this measure estimate a need to deploy 30,000-50,000 small cells statewide over the next five to seven years to meet their customer demand. They argue that this volume of small cell deployments will require the use of already-existing buildings and other infrastructure, specifically infrastructure in the public rights-of-way that local governments own. Despite the requirements of the federal shot clock and AB 57, wireless carriers also argue that existing permit processes will not allow this roll-out quickly enough. Finally, proponents argue that lease costs – including in-kind items such as free Wi-Fi or other contributions – that cities and counties demand in agreements with wireless service providers are barriers to their ability to meet this customer demand. They are seeking this bill as a solution to these stated needs and problems.
- Bill Summary. This bill establishes a process that cities and counties must follow that is unique to the permitting of small cells, limits the compensation that cities and counties can negotiate when a wireless carrier wishes to use a local government's vertical infrastructure for small cells, prohibits cities and counties from precluding the placement of small cells on their infrastructure in the public rights-of-way, and makes a number of additional changes to law governing the siting of small cells, and to permits for wireless facilities generally.
Among its many provisions, this bill requires a small cell to be a permitted use, subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county as specified below, if it satisfies the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use (which would include a mixed-use zone);
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal ADA; and,
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
Approval of a small cell is limited to a building permit or its functional equivalent for placements outside of the right-of-way, or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued as specified, and any additional ministerial permits, provided all permits are issued within timeframes required by state and federal law. Permits may be subject to specified conditions including, among others: a requirement to submit information showing compliance with FCC regulations concerning radio frequency emissions; a condition that small cells not being used to provide service be removed; and, a condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the rights-of way.
Permits may not be subject to any of the following: requirements to provide additional services, including in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space; the submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as otherwise provided in the bill; limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size, or smaller; and, the regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
A city or a county is not allowed to preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements, and it must make its vertical infrastructure available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees (as defined below), terms, and conditions that may include feasible design and collocation standards. Vertical infrastructure is defined as all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right-of-way or utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions. A city or a county may reserve capacity on its own vertical infrastructure only if it adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
For the use of its vertical infrastructure, a city or a county may charge an annual administrative permit fee of up to $250 for each small cell, an annual attachment rate that is based on recovery of costs, and a one-time reimbursement fee for costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements requested by the small cell provider. Before it can adopt or increase the rate, a city or county must hold one open and public hearing, with required notices and information beforehand. The bill allows, but does not require, a city or county to approve the ordinance or resolution at a regularly scheduled open meeting at least 30 days after the initial hearing. Any judicial action against the ordinance or resolution must begin within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
A city or county cannot discriminate against the deployment of a small cell on its own property and must make space available on property not located in the rights-of-way on terms that are no less favorable than those provided for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
This bill specifies that existing agreements between a wireless service provider, or its agents and assigns, and a city, a county, or a city or county’s agents and assigns, regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination or other provisions in the existing agreement, or unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties. A wireless service provider may require the rates of this section for new small cells sites that are deployed after the operative date of this section in accordance with applicable change of law provisions in the existing agreements.
This bill states that its provisions do not alter any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
This bill states that nothing in it shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by existing law on a local publicly owned electric utility, and that it does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utility’s reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies. A city or a county must consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
This bill also contains language stating that nothing in the bill shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, including, but not limited to, decisions of the PUC adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
Nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the PUC, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
This bill prohibits a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and from regulating any communications services or imposing or collecting any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law, with specified exceptions, or as specifically required by state law.
This bill also amends existing law governing permits for wireless telecommunications facilities (not just small cells). Existing law allows cities and counties to limit permits to
10 years. This bill would require permits to be renewed for equivalent durations, unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
Because of its findings and declarations that small cells are not a municipal affair, but are a matter of statewide concern, this bill would apply to charter cities.
- Opposition Concerns. In addition to objections articulated by the opposition, below (see comment #12), the Committee should be aware of the following issues raised by opponents of this bill:
- Technological Neutrality. Some opponents are concerned that this bill is not technology-neutral. Frontier Communications notes, "Frontier is concerned that SB 649, while expediting permitting and capping fees for small cell deployment, may cause delay and increased costs for wireline providers that need permits from the same local agencies. This could jeopardize critical federal broadband funds for California if Frontier or other providers participating in the (FCC's Connect America Fund) program cannot meet strict construction deadlines."
- Health Concerns. A number of organizations and individuals who are concerned about the health effects of radio frequency radiation oppose this bill, due to the rapid proliferation of small cells they fear will result if this bill becomes law.
- Additional Policy Concerns. Also in addition to objections expressed by the opposition, the Committee may wish to consider the following:
- Environmental Review. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research to include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that shall be exempt from CEQA. These are referred to as "categorical exemptions." Categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions to assure eligible projects do not have a significant effect on the environment, including when cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type in the same place may result in significant effect or there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. This bill bypasses that process, preventing review of a project’s environmental impacts under CEQA.
- FCC Proceeding. As noted above, the FCC issued a NPRM just last month to examine the regulatory barriers to wireless network infrastructure investment and deployment. The results of this process are as yet unknown and could inform California in its decisions regarding this issue, or could conflict with the provisions of this bill.
- Committee Amendments. The Committee may wish to adopt the following amendments to address some of the concerns with this bill:
- Automatic Renewal of Permits. This bill amends existing law governing permits for wireless telecommunications facilities (not just small cells). Existing law allows cities and counties to limit permits to 10 years. Section two of this bill would require permits to be renewed for equivalent durations, unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved. The sponsor has indicated that this amendment is being sought because of instances in which localities are requiring wireless providers to needlessly tear down old towers and replace them with new ones. This provision appears to extend well beyond the stated intent of the sponsor to address barriers to small cell siting. The Committee may wish to remove this provision by striking Section two of the bill.
- The $250 Question. The bill provides that cities and counties may charge "an annual administrative permit fee not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure." This language has led to confusion regarding whether this caps fees that cities and counties may charge for permits. The Committee may wish to amend this language to clarify that the $250 per attachment amount is part of the rate cities and counties may charge for the use of their infrastructure, and that permit fees would be separate and in addition to this $250 charge.
- Less is More? This bill states that it does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual administrative permit fee or attachment rate that is less than the fees or rates established in this bill. This has led to concerns that the bill precludes agreements in which a wireless service provider is willing to pay more than this amount. The Committee may wish to amend this language to clarify that agreements can include an attachment rate that is different from the fees or rates in this bill.
- Grandfathering. This bill contains the following language: "Existing agreements between a wireless service provider, or its agents and assigns, and a city, a county, or a city or county’s agents and assigns, regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination or other provisions in the existing agreement, or unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties. A wireless service provider may require the rates of this section for new small cells sites that are deployed after the operative date of this section in accordance with applicable change of law provisions in the existing agreements." This language has raised concerns on the part of opponents and the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which drafted similar, but not identical, language. The Committee may wish to amend this language to resolve these concerns.
- Contradictory. On page 11, beginning in line 17, this bill states: "Except as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b), nothing in this section shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code pursuant to state and federal law, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Public Utility Commission adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code." This exception appears to contradict the intent of the remainder of this language. The Committee may wish to remove this exception.
- Previous Legislation. AB 2788 (Gatto) of 2016 was similar to this bill. AB 2788 was not heard in this committee, as it left the Assembly addressing a different subject. AB 2788 was referred to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, but was never heard.
AB 57 (Quirk), Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015, provided that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if: a city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within the reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the FCC; all required public notices have been provided regarding the application; and, the applicant has provided a notice to the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed.
AB 162 (Holden) of 2013 would have prohibited a local government from denying an eligible facilities request, as defined, for a modification of an existing wireless telecommunications facility or structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the wireless telecommunications facility or structure, and would have required a local government to act on an eligible facilities request within 90 days of receipt. The bill was referred to this Committee, but was never heard.
AB 1027 (Buchanan), Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011, required local publicly-owned electric utilities, including irrigation districts, to make appropriate space and capacity on and in their utility poles and support structures available for use by cable television corporations, video service providers, and telephone corporations.
SB 1627 (Kehoe), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2006, required local governments to administratively approve applications to place wireless communications equipment on structures where such equipment is already located if specified conditions have been met, and prohibited local governments from conditioning approval of applications for permits for wireless facilities in specified ways.
- Arguments in Support. CTIA, sponsor of this measure, in a coalition letter with the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, Crown Castle, the California Peace Officers Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, QualComm, the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the Congress of California Seniors, Tracfone, the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, CompTIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support, state, "Wireless technology has revolutionized our lives and the way that we communicate. It has transformed how our businesses and schools operate and improved how our cities function.
"Today, smartphones, laptops and tablets are basic tools in our everyday lives. In fact, there are more wireless devices in California than there are people. Further, mobile data usage has grown by more than 2,300% since 2010. To accommodate skyrocketing demand and prepare wireless networks for the next generation, those networks must be updated today. SB 649 will help make that happen.
"Small cell wireless facilities are being deployed today to meet this increased demand for data, enhancing capacity on today’s 4G LTE wireless networks and establishing the backbone for the next generation of wireless networks, called 5G. 5G will offer the bandwidth to accommodate billions of devices at the speed required for our connected society.
"SB 649 is an essential measure to keep California at the leading edge of this new technology. Other states across the country and around the globe are already encouraging deployment of gigabit wireless internet by streamlining deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure. SB 649 will provide a clear path for California communities to deploy the needed infrastructure by asking for no public subsidies or use of taxpayer dollars. Instead, SB 649 simply asks for clear guidance for wireless providers to invest millions of dollars of their own money.
"By laying out a clear set of rules for all to follow, SB 649 will help communities:
- Open the path to California 'smart cities' with solutions delivering significant energy and transportation benefits and creating a more 'connected world';
- Provide up to 100 times faster speeds – gigabit internet in your pocket – enabling download of a full HD movie in seconds;
- Improve public safety services and help save lives with advanced communications and logistics and faster response times; and
- Create thousands of new jobs via infrastructure development and increased economic competitiveness.
"SB 649 creates a reliable set of guidelines for communities in making decisions on the deployment of small cell wireless technology with a process that reflects their much smaller size and footprint than traditional cell phone towers. It also ensures local governments retain oversight for health and safety conditions building and encroachment permits, local code compliance, and feasible design and collocation standards.
"Given the way Californians live today, citizens, businesses, public safety agencies and government demand the latest technology and the highest speeds in wireless communications. A clear process is needed so network developers can plan appropriately and avoid unnecessary delays in delivering required cutting-edge services.
"Nearly a dozen states across the country have already moved to streamline the deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure to accommodate consumers’ insatiable data demands and ready themselves for 5G wireless technology. It is imperative that California retain its position as a global leader in technology and innovation. SB 649 is a smart, cooperative approach that tells the rest of the country and the world that California is ready for investment and will retain its position as leader in innovation."
- Arguments in Opposition. The California Chapter of the American Planning Association, the League of California Cities, the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California and Protect our Local Streets Coalition, in opposition, write, "SB 649 eliminates public input, full local environmental and design review, mandates the leasing of publicly owned infrastructure and eliminates the ability for local governments to negotiate leases or any public benefit for the installation of 'small cell' equipment on taxpayer funded property. These not-so-small 'small cell' structures would be required to be allowed on public property in any zone in a city or county and would be subject to a confusing permitting process carved out for the sole benefit of the wireless industry…
"(Section 4 of the bill) vastly expands the scope of SB 649 beyond 'small cells,' and would broadly preempt regulation of virtually any communications facilities within local rights-of-way. This would not merely limit, but would implicitly repeal the longstanding provisions of California law allowing local governments to reasonably regulate privately-owned facilities placed within the streets and roads for which they are responsible. Local regulations protect public health and safety by ensuring that equipment placed within the right-of-way does not cause traffic hazards, or interfere with sight distances necessary to avoid accidents at busy intersections – and protect neighborhood character and quality of life through reasonable concealment and similar aesthetic conditions. It is difficult to overstate the hazards to the public welfare of all Californians threatened by SB 649’s wholesale elimination of such local authority…
"While the wireless industry promises local governments will retain their discretion, the bill eliminates the full discretion locals currently have to require that such equipment blends into the communities they are entering and that providers maintain their equipment. The bill eliminates the ability of a city or county to negotiate any public benefit such as providing network access for the local library. Additionally, this bill places the entire burden on local governments to adopt a complicated set of ordinances, again increasing costs to the local jurisdiction, at the same time the bill caps the flexible revenue cities and counties can generate for public services such as infrastructure, police, fire, libraries, human services or looming pension obligations.
"SB 649 forces local government to rent space for small cells on public property at rates far below fair market value and requires that every jurisdiction, in order to use its own public property, provide 'substantial evidence' that the space is needed by that community. Rents from the use of public property, which every other for-profit business pays, help defray the cost of essential public services that are otherwise provided at taxpayer expense. SB 649 sets a dangerous precedent for other private industries to seek similar treatment, further eroding the ability to fund local services.
"SB 649 proposes to calculate the maximum rate for these non-consensual leases using a formula designed only for electricity and telephone poles – a limited category of installations, with fairly uniform features and costs. Application of this formula to the vast variety of 'vertical infrastructure' covered by SB 649 is both unfair and uncertain. The capital and operational cost components for these facilities vary widely in both complexity and amount, and (this formula is) virtually certain to result in continual disputes and confusion statewide.
"While the supporters continue to state that the purpose of the bill is to deploy in rural or underserved areas of the state, there is still no requirement for such deployment. This bill does not provide anything to our constituents in exchange for giving up our public property. The bill explicitly allows for a discretionary review in areas within the coastal zone or in historical districts. Cities and counties that are not included in this exemption are essentially left with little ability to clearly apply design standards. With these amendments, it’s clear that supporters of the bill concede discretionary review is important… but only for certain areas of the state.
"Small cells are just in the beginning stages of being deployed. Given that many jurisdictions haven’t even processed a small cell permit yet, or only handled a small number, it is unclear why there is such an urgent need for this bill. This bill is being passed with the assumption that there will be issues, which supporters have yet to demonstrate. What other types of structures or industries will be next in line to demand free or low cost access to public property to boost corporate profit margins? While (we) support the deployment of wireless facilities to ensure that Californians have access to telecommunications services, this goal is not inherently in conflict with appropriate local planning and appropriate fee negotiations on publically owned infrastructure."
- Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Communications and Conveyance Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: (Includes support and opposition letters received by the Committee's deadline which may address a prior version of the bill)
Support
CTIA [SPONSOR]
59DaysOfCode
100 Black Men of Long Beach
American Indian Chamber of Commerce of California
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association
Asian Resources Inc.
AT&T
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce
Black Business Association
California Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
California Friday Night Live Partnership
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California State Conference of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People
Support (continued)
California State Sheriffs’ Association
California Urban Partnership
California Utilities Emergency Association
CALinnovates
CalTech San Diego
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce
Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce
Chinese American Association of Solano County
Cleanteach San Diego
Coalition of Concerned California Communities
Community Technology Network
Community Women Vital Voices
CompTIA
Concerned Black Men of Los Angeles
Concerned Citizens Community Involvement
Congress of California Seniors
Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for
Advocacy and Leadership
Council on American-Islamic Relations, California
Crown Castle
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Downtown San Diego Partnership
East Bay Leadership Council
Elderly Foundation
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow Foundation
Eskaton Foundation
Exceptional Parents Unlimited
Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation
Fresno Center for New Americans
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Fresno County Economic Development Corporation
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Hacker Lab
Hispanic Chamber of e-Commerce
Hispanic Heritage Foundation
I/O Labs
Imagine H2O
InBiz Latino-North County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Invictus Foundation
Support (continued)
Jobs and Housing Coalition
Krimson and Kreme, Inc.
Lake County Sheriff
Latin Business Association
Latino Council
Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy Project
Lifestyle Stroke Foundation
Lighthouse Counseling & Family Resource Center
LIME Foundation
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Urban League
Marjaree Mason Center
Meeting of the Minds
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Monterey County Business Council
Museum of the African Diaspora
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Eureka
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inglewood/South Bay
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Los Angeles
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, North San Diego
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Riverside
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, Sacramento
National Association of Women Business Owners
National City Public Safety Foundation
National Latina Business Women Association of Los Angeles
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Organization of Chinese Americans
Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center
PulsePoint
Qualcomm
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Russian American Media
Sabio Enterprises Inc.
Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps
Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund
San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Diego North Economic Development Council
Support (continued)
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Pride Center
San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Slavic American Chamber of Commerce
Society for the Blind
Solano Community College Educational Foundation
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Southeast Community Development Corporation
Southern California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California
Sprint
T-Mobile US
TechNet
The East Los Angeles Community Union
The Arc California
The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals
The Observer Media Group
The Urban Hive
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
Tracfone
Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
United Policyholders
Urban Corps of San Diego County
Urban League of San Diego County
Verizon
Veteran’s Association of North County
Voluntary Organizations Active in a Disaster
Volunteers of America Southwest
WEAVE, Inc.
Wireless Infrastructure Association
Women’s Intercultural Network
Individual letters (9)
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter
American Public Works Association
Association of Environmental Professionals
Bay Area Educators for Safe Tech
Brentwood Community Council
California Brain Tumor Association
California Chapters of the American Public Works Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
Opposition (continued)
California Park & Recreation Society
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
Cities of: Albany, Alameda, Aliso Viejo, Arcadia, Azusa, Bakersfield, Bellflower, Benicia,
Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Big Bear Lake, Brawley, Brea, Buena Park, Burbank, Camarillo,
Capitola, Carpinteria, Chino, Chino Hills, Chula Vista, Citrus Heights, Claremont,
Clayton, Cloverdale, Colfax, Colma, Concord, Corona, Coronado, Costa Mesa, Culver
City, Cupertino, Davis, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Dublin, Eastvale, El Centro, Elk Grove,
Emeryville, Encinitas, Escalon, Fairfax, Farmersville, Fontana, Fountain Valley,
Fremont, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Goleta, Hanford, Hayward, Hemet, Hermosa Beach, Hesperia, Highland, Hillsborough, Huntington Beach, Indio, Indian Wells, Inglewood, La Cañada Flintridge, La Habra, La Mirada, La Quinta, La Verne, Lafayette, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lakeport, Lakewood, Lathrop, Livermore, Lodi, Lomita, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Lomita, Mammoth Lakes, Manteca, Martinez, Menifee, Merced, Mission Viejo, Modesto, Monrovia, Montclair, Monterey, Monterey Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Murrieta, National City, Nevada City, Newport Beach, Norco, Norwalk, Oakland, Oakley, Oceanside, Ontario, Pacific Grove, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Palo Alto, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Paso Robles, Piedmont, Pismo Beach, Placentia, Pleasanton, Point Arena, Pomona, Porterville, Rancho Cordova, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Richmond, Riverbank, Riverside, Rocklin, Rohnert Park, Rosemead, Roseville, Salinas, San Anselmo, San Buenaventura, San Carlos, San Gabriel, San Jose, San Leandro, San Marcos, San Marino, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Clarita, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Santee, Scotts Valley, Sebastopol, Signal Hill, Stanton, Sunnyvale, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Turlock, Tulare, Tustin, Ukiah, Union City, Upland, Vacaville, Vallejo, Ventura, Victorville, Vista, Walnut, Walnut Creek, West Covina, West Hollywood, Whittier, and Yuba
City-County Streetlight Association
City Manager Brian Loventhal, City of Campbell
Coalition of Concerned California Communities
Councilmember Mike Bonin, City of Los Angeles
Councilmember Bill DeHart, City of Turlock
Counties of: Del Norte, Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Monterey,
Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo,
San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sonoma,
Tehama, Tuolumne, and Ventura
Ecological Options Network
EMF Safety Network
EMR Protection Forum
Green Sangha
Health & Habitat Inc.
Law Offices of Harry V. Lehmann PC
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
League of California Cities, Redwood Empire Division
League of California Cities, Riverside County Division
Opposition (continued)
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
Lodi District Chamber of Commerce
Marin Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Mayors & Councilmembers Association of Sonoma
Mayor Donald P. Wagner, City of Irvine
Mayor Clyde Roberson, City of Monterey
Mayor Sue Higgins, City of Oakley
Mayor Len Augustine, City of Vacaville
Mayor Gary Soiseth, City of Turlock
Mono County Community Development Department
MuniServices
Northern California Power Agency
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Physicians for Safe Technology
Protect our Local Streets Coalition
Radiation Research Trust
Rural County Representatives of California
Sacramento Smart Meter Awareness
SafeWater Marin Alliance
Sage Associates
San Francisco Water Power Sewer
Scientists for Wired Technology
Southern California Public Power Authority
The Utility Reform Network
Town of Apple Valley
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Danville
Town of Hillsborough
Town of Mammoth Lakes
Town of Moraga
Town of Portola Valley
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
Union Sanitary District
Urban Counties of California
Ventura Council of Governments
Veterans for Radiation Safety
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowner Association
Windheim EMF Solutions
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
Your Own Health and Fitness
Individual letters (15)
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2017
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 649
Author:(Hueso) – As Amended Ver:June 20, 2017
SENATE VOTE: 32-1
SUBJECT: Wireless telecommunications facilities.
SUMMARY: Establishes permitting and leasing requirements for small cell wireless facilities that cities and counties must follow, requires cities and counties to automatically renew permits for wireless facilities generally, and makes a number of other changes to law governing small cell wireless facilities. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires a small cell to be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to 2), below, if it satisfies the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use;
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and,
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Allows a city or a county to require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit or its functional equivalent in connection with placement outside of the public rights-of-way or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued consistent with Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code for the placement in public rights-of-way, and any additional ministerial permits, provided that all permits are issued within the timeframes required by state and federal law.
- Allows permits issued pursuant to 2), above, to be subject to the following:
- The same permit requirements as for similar construction projects and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner;
- A requirement to submit additional information showing that the small cell complies with the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) regulations concerning radio frequency emissions, as specified;
- A condition that the applicable permit may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year. Absent a showing of good cause, an applicant under this section may not renew the permit or resubmit an application to develop a small cell at the same location within six months of rescission;
- A condition that small cells no longer used to provide service shall be removed at no cost to the city or county;
- Compliance with building codes, including building code structural requirements;
- A condition that the applicant pay all electricity costs associated with the operation of the small cell; and,
- A condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the rights-of-way.
- Prohibits permits issued pursuant to 2), above, from being subject to:
- Requirements to provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space;
- The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as specifically provided in this bill;
- Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size or smaller; and,
- The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
- Prohibits a city or county from imposing permitting requirements or fees on the installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended, whether embedded or attached, on cables or lines that are strung between existing utility poles in compliance with state safety codes.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements under these terms:
- Vertical infrastructure shall be made available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees [subject to the requirements in 7), below], terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards; and,
- A city or county may reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if the city or county adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
- Provides that a city or county may charge the following fees:
- An annual administrative permit fee not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure; and,
- An annual attachment rate that does not exceed an amount resulting from the following requirements:
- The city or county shall calculate the rate by multiplying the percentage of the total usable space that would be occupied by the attachment by the annual costs of ownership of the vertical infrastructure and its anchor, if any; and,
- The city or county shall not levy a rate that exceeds the estimated amount required to provide use of the vertical infrastructure for which the annual recurring rate is levied. If the rate creates revenues in excess of actual costs, the city or county shall use those revenues to reduce the rate; and,
- A one-time reimbursement fee for actual costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements performed at the request of the small cell provider.
- Provides the following definitions for purposes of the annual attachment rate described in 7) b), above:
- "Annual costs of ownership" means the annual capital costs and annual operating costs of the vertical infrastructure, which shall be the average costs of all similar vertical infrastructure owned or controlled by the city or county. The basis for the computation of annual capital costs shall be historical capital costs less depreciation. The accounting upon which the historical capital costs are determined shall include a credit for all reimbursed capital costs. Depreciation shall be based upon the average service life of the vertical infrastructure. Annual cost of ownership does not include costs for any property not necessary for use by the small cell; and,
- "Usable space" means the space above the minimum grade that can be used for the attachment of antennas and associated ancillary equipment.
- Requires a city or a county to comply with the following before adopting or increasing the rate described in 7) b), above:
- At least 14 days before the hearing described in c), below, the city or county shall provide notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered;
- At least 10 days before the hearing described in c), below, the city or county shall make available to the public data indicating the cost, or estimated cost, to make vertical structures available for use under this bill if the city or county adopts or increases the proposed rate;
- The city or county shall, as a part of a regularly scheduled public meeting, hold at least one open and public hearing at which time the city or county shall permit the public to make oral or written presentations relating to the rate. The city or county shall include a description of the rate in the notice and agenda of the public meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act); and,
- The city or county may approve the ordinance or resolution to adopt or increase the rate at a regularly scheduled open meeting that occurs at least 30 days after the initial public meeting described in c), above.
- Requires a judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance or resolution adopting, or increasing, a fee described in 7), above, to be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution adopting or increasing the fee, as specified.
- Specifies that this bill does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual administrative permit fee or attachment rate that is less than the fees or rates established in this bill.
- Prohibits a city or county from discriminating against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county and requires a city or a county to make space available on property not located in the public rights-of-way under terms and conditions that are no less favorable than the terms and conditions under which the space is made available for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
- Provides that this bill does not alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
- Provides that existing agreements between a wireless service provider, or its agents and assigns, and a city, a county, or a city or county’s agents and assigns, regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination or other provisions in the existing agreement, or unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties. A wireless service provider may require the rates of this section for new small cells sites that are deployed after the operative date of this section in accordance with applicable change of law provisions in the existing agreements.
- Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by existing law on a local publicly owned electric utility.
- Provides that this bill does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utility’s reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies.
- Requires a city or a county to consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes consistent with this bill that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
- States that, except as provided in 1) through 5), above, nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified, including, but not limited to, decisions of the PUC adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
- Provides that nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the Public Utilities Commission, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
- Prohibits a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and from regulating any communications services or imposing or collecting any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law, with specified exceptions.
- Amends existing law that governs permits for wireless telecommunications facilities (not just small cells), which allows cities and counties to limit permits to 10 years, by requiring permits to be renewed for equivalent durations, unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
- Provides the following definitions:
- "Micro wireless facility" means a small cell that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches;
- "Small cell" means a wireless telecommunications facility (as defined in existing law to mean equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services), or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed spectrum and that meets the following qualifications:
- The small cell antennas on the structure, excluding the associated equipment, total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether an array or separate;
- Any individual piece of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed nine cubic feet;
- The cumulative total of associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet;
- The cumulative total of any ground-mounted equipment along with the associated equipment on any pole or nonpole structure does not exceed 35 cubic feet; and,
- The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meters and any required pedestal; concealment elements; any telecommunications demarcation box; grounding equipment; power transfer switch; cutoff switch; vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services; and, equipment concealed within an existing building or structure;
- "Small cell" includes a micro wireless facility;
- "Small cell" does not include the following:
- Wireline backhaul facility, which is defined to mean a facility used for the transport of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network;
- Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna or collocation;
- Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission; or,
- The underlying vertical infrastructure.
- "Vertical infrastructure" means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public rights-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions. The term "controlled" means having the right to allow subleases or sublicensing. A city or county may impose feasible design or collocation standards for small cells placed on vertical infrastructure, including the placement of associated equipment on the vertical infrastructure or the ground.
- Finds and declares that, to ensure that communities across the state have access to the most advanced communications technologies and the transformative solutions that robust wireless and wireline connectivity enables, such as Smart Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless communications infrastructure in California that does all of the following:
- Reaffirms local governments’ historic role and authority with respect to communications infrastructure siting and construction generally;
- Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both statewide and national concern;
- Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not be subject to discretionary zoning review;
- Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions adopted at the time the site was originally approved;
- Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility deployments on a ministerial basis;
- Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public rights-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95;
- Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, streetlights, and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole attachments generally;
- Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based; and,
- Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist today.
- Finds and declares that small cells, as defined in this bill, have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but are a matter of statewide concern.
- Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement. According to the author, "SB 649 recognizes the public-policy benefit and exploding consumer demand for greater, faster access to next-generation wireless networks – and establishes a reliable and standardized process for siting the physical infrastructure necessary to meet that demand. For California to remain technologically competitive and to ensure the benefits of innovation are reaching every community, we must do all we can – as fast as we can – to make next-generation 5G wireless networks a reality.
"In fact, recent studies have shown that widespread 5G investment in California will generate billions in economic growth and billions more in savings from wireless-enabled smart community solutions – lowered energy use, reduced traffic and fuel costs and improved public safety applications. But building the wireless network of tomorrow requires the rapid deployment of small cell structures. SB 649 does not affect the ability of local governments to manage its public rights of way or to impose reasonable fees, terms and conditions to access to city or county owned property. This bill is designed to benefit California consumers and businesses, who have overwhelmingly told us that they want California to stay at the forefront of the wireless economy."
This bill is sponsored by CTIA.
- Small Cells. According to an FCC report and order released in 2014, "The increasing demand for advanced wireless services and greater wireless bandwidth is driving an urgent and growing need for additional infrastructure deployment and new infrastructure technologies. To meet localized needs for coverage and increased capacity in outdoor and indoor environments, many wireless providers have turned in part to distributed antenna system (DAS) networks and small-cell technologies.
"Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network, typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Because these cells are significantly smaller in coverage area than traditional macrocells, networks that incorporate small-cell technology can reuse scarce wireless frequencies, thus greatly increasing spectral efficiency and data capacity within the network footprint. For example, deploying ten small cells in a coverage area that can be served by a single macrocell could result in a tenfold increase in capacity while using the same quantity of spectrum…
"(W)hereas small cells are usually operator-managed and support only a single wireless service provider, DAS networks can often accommodate multiple providers using different frequencies and/or wireless air interfaces. Small wireless technologies like DAS and small cells have a number of advantages over traditional macrocells. Because the facilities deployed at each node are physically much smaller than macrocell antennas and associated equipment and do not require the same elevation, they can be placed on light stanchions, utility poles, building walls and rooftops, and other small structures either privately owned or in the public rights-of-way. Thus, providers can deploy the technologies in geographic areas, such as densely populated urban areas, where traditional towers are not feasible or in areas, such as stadiums, where localized wireless traffic demands would require an unrealistic number of macrocells. In addition, because these technologies utilize small equipment and transmit at signal power levels much lower than macrocells, they can be deployed in indoor environments to improve interior wireless services…
"…DAS and small-cell deployments are a comparatively cost-effective way of addressing increased demand for wireless broadband services, particularly in urban areas. As a result, providers are rapidly increasing their use of these technologies, and the growth is projected to increase exponentially in the coming years. According to one estimate, more than 37 million small cells will be deployed by 2017…(and) one study projects that aggregate small-cell capacity will overtake macrocell capacity by 2016-2017. As they are increasingly relied upon, DAS and small-cell technologies are also posing new logistical deployment challenges. In particular, because individual DAS nodes and small cells cover small areas, providers must often deploy a substantial number of nodes to achieve the seamless coverage of a single macrocell."
- Federal Law Governing Wireless Siting by Local Governments. Two federal laws – the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and a portion of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 known as the "Spectrum Act" – require local governments to act within a "reasonable period of time" on permits for siting wireless facilities. The FCC is responsible for administering these laws. In 2009 and 2014, the FCC issued two decisions to clarify the definition of a period of time that is presumed to be reasonable for various categories of wireless telecommunications facilities. Specifically, the FCC established a shot clock by ruling that local governments should generally approve or disapprove applications for projects within the following time frames:
- 60 days for a project that is an "eligible facilities request," which is defined by the FCC as a collocation on an existing facility that does not substantially change its physical dimensions;
- 90 days for a project that is a collocation that substantially changes the dimensions of the facility, but does not substantially change its size; and,
- 150 days for projects that are new sites for wireless facilities.
In May of this year, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry to examine the regulatory impediments to wireless network infrastructure investment and deployment, looking specifically at how state and local processes affect the speed and cost of infrastructure deployment and asking for comment on improving state and local infrastructure reviews, such as zoning requests. Comments were due June 9th.
- State Law Governing Wireless Siting by Local Governments. Providers of wireless telecommunications services must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures or other wireless facilities that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Wireless carriers must also obtain local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on facilities where that equipment already exists, known as "collocations."
Telecommunications companies have the right to access utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles and municipal utility poles, providing the PUC the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Under this framework, telecommunications companies may erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but can regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the right of way under Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code. In addition, investor-owned utilities and municipal utilities can only charge cost-based rates for attaching to their poles.
However, these restrictions do not apply to other infrastructure in the right of way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. These agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis and contain provisions that vary from locality to locality.
In addition to the federal shot clock described above, AB 57 (Quirk), Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015, provided that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if a city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the FCC.
- Stated Need for This Bill. The proponents of this measure estimate a need to deploy 30,000-50,000 small cells statewide over the next five to seven years to meet their customer demand. They argue that this volume of small cell deployments will require the use of already-existing buildings and other infrastructure, specifically infrastructure in the public rights-of-way that local governments own. Despite the requirements of the federal shot clock and AB 57, wireless carriers also argue that existing permit processes will not allow this roll-out quickly enough. Finally, proponents argue that lease costs – including in-kind items such as free Wi-Fi or other contributions – that cities and counties demand in agreements with wireless service providers are barriers to their ability to meet this customer demand. They are seeking this bill as a solution to these stated needs and problems.
- Bill Summary. This bill establishes a process that cities and counties must follow that is unique to the permitting of small cells, limits the compensation that cities and counties can negotiate when a wireless carrier wishes to use a local government's vertical infrastructure for small cells, prohibits cities and counties from precluding the placement of small cells on their infrastructure in the public rights-of-way, and makes a number of additional changes to law governing the siting of small cells, and to permits for wireless facilities generally.
Among its many provisions, this bill requires a small cell to be a permitted use, subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county as specified below, if it satisfies the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in the public rights-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use (which would include a mixed-use zone);
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, including the federal ADA; and,
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
Approval of a small cell is limited to a building permit or its functional equivalent for placements outside of the right-of-way, or an encroachment permit or its functional equivalent issued as specified, and any additional ministerial permits, provided all permits are issued within timeframes required by state and federal law. Permits may be subject to specified conditions including, among others: a requirement to submit information showing compliance with FCC regulations concerning radio frequency emissions; a condition that small cells not being used to provide service be removed; and, a condition to comply with feasible design and collocation standards on a small cell to be installed on property not in the rights-of way.
Permits may not be subject to any of the following: requirements to provide additional services, including in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space; the submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as otherwise provided in the bill; limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size, or smaller; and, the regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
A city or a county is not allowed to preclude the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public rights-of-way or public utility easements, and it must make its vertical infrastructure available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees (as defined below), terms, and conditions that may include feasible design and collocation standards. Vertical infrastructure is defined as all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right-of-way or utility easements and meant for, or used in whole or part for, communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions. A city or a county may reserve capacity on its own vertical infrastructure only if it adopts a resolution finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the capacity is needed for projected city or county uses.
For the use of its vertical infrastructure, a city or a county may charge an annual administrative permit fee of up to $250 for each small cell, an annual attachment rate that is based on recovery of costs, and a one-time reimbursement fee for costs incurred by the city or county for rearrangements requested by the small cell provider. Before it can adopt or increase the rate, a city or county must hold one open and public hearing, with required notices and information beforehand. The bill allows, but does not require, a city or county to approve the ordinance or resolution at a regularly scheduled open meeting at least 30 days after the initial hearing. Any judicial action against the ordinance or resolution must begin within 120 days of the effective date of the ordinance or resolution.
A city or county cannot discriminate against the deployment of a small cell on its own property and must make space available on property not located in the rights-of-way on terms that are no less favorable than those provided for comparable commercial projects or uses. These installations shall be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
This bill specifies that existing agreements between a wireless service provider, or its agents and assigns, and a city, a county, or a city or county’s agents and assigns, regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination or other provisions in the existing agreement, or unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties. A wireless service provider may require the rates of this section for new small cells sites that are deployed after the operative date of this section in accordance with applicable change of law provisions in the existing agreements.
This bill states that its provisions do not alter any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law, as specified.
This bill states that nothing in it shall be construed to authorize or impose an obligation to charge a use fee different than that authorized by existing law on a local publicly owned electric utility, and that it does not change or remove any obligation by the owner or operator of a small cell to comply with a local publicly owned electric utility’s reasonable and feasible safety, reliability, and engineering policies. A city or a county must consult with the utility director of a local publicly owned electric utility when adopting an ordinance or establishing permitting processes that impact the local publicly owned electric utility.
This bill also contains language stating that nothing in the bill shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, including, but not limited to, decisions of the PUC adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
Nothing in this bill shall be construed to modify any applicable rules adopted by the PUC, including General Order 95 requirements, regarding the attachment of wireless facilities to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as specified.
This bill prohibits a city or county from adopting or enforcing any regulation on the placement or operation of communications facilities in the rights-of-way by a provider authorized by state law to operate in the rights-of-way, and from regulating any communications services or imposing or collecting any tax, fee, or charge not specifically authorized under state law, with specified exceptions, or as specifically required by state law.
This bill also amends existing law governing permits for wireless telecommunications facilities (not just small cells). Existing law allows cities and counties to limit permits to
10 years. This bill would require permits to be renewed for equivalent durations, unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
Because of its findings and declarations that small cells are not a municipal affair, but are a matter of statewide concern, this bill would apply to charter cities.
- Opposition Concerns. In addition to objections articulated by the opposition, below (see comment #12), the Committee should be aware of the following issues raised by opponents of this bill:
- Technological Neutrality. Some opponents are concerned that this bill is not technology-neutral. Frontier Communications notes, "Frontier is concerned that SB 649, while expediting permitting and capping fees for small cell deployment, may cause delay and increased costs for wireline providers that need permits from the same local agencies. This could jeopardize critical federal broadband funds for California if Frontier or other providers participating in the (FCC's Connect America Fund) program cannot meet strict construction deadlines."
- Health Concerns. A number of organizations and individuals who are concerned about the health effects of radio frequency radiation oppose this bill, due to the rapid proliferation of small cells they fear will result if this bill becomes law.
- Additional Policy Concerns. Also in addition to objections expressed by the opposition, the Committee may wish to consider the following:
- Environmental Review. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research to include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that shall be exempt from CEQA. These are referred to as "categorical exemptions." Categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions to assure eligible projects do not have a significant effect on the environment, including when cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type in the same place may result in significant effect or there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. This bill bypasses that process, preventing review of a project’s environmental impacts under CEQA.
- FCC Proceeding. As noted above, the FCC issued a NPRM just last month to examine the regulatory barriers to wireless network infrastructure investment and deployment. The results of this process are as yet unknown and could inform California in its decisions regarding this issue, or could conflict with the provisions of this bill.
- Committee Amendments. The Committee may wish to adopt the following amendments to address some of the concerns with this bill:
- Automatic Renewal of Permits. This bill amends existing law governing permits for wireless telecommunications facilities (not just small cells). Existing law allows cities and counties to limit permits to 10 years. Section two of this bill would require permits to be renewed for equivalent durations, unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved. The sponsor has indicated that this amendment is being sought because of instances in which localities are requiring wireless providers to needlessly tear down old towers and replace them with new ones. This provision appears to extend well beyond the stated intent of the sponsor to address barriers to small cell siting. The Committee may wish to remove this provision by striking Section two of the bill.
- The $250 Question. The bill provides that cities and counties may charge "an annual administrative permit fee not to exceed $250 for each small cell attached to city or county vertical infrastructure." This language has led to confusion regarding whether this caps fees that cities and counties may charge for permits. The Committee may wish to amend this language to clarify that the $250 per attachment amount is part of the rate cities and counties may charge for the use of their infrastructure, and that permit fees would be separate and in addition to this $250 charge.
- Less is More? This bill states that it does not prohibit a wireless service provider and a city or county from mutually agreeing to an annual administrative permit fee or attachment rate that is less than the fees or rates established in this bill. This has led to concerns that the bill precludes agreements in which a wireless service provider is willing to pay more than this amount. The Committee may wish to amend this language to clarify that agreements can include an attachment rate that is different from the fees or rates in this bill.
- Grandfathering. This bill contains the following language: "Existing agreements between a wireless service provider, or its agents and assigns, and a city, a county, or a city or county’s agents and assigns, regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure entered into before the operative date of this section remain in effect, subject to applicable termination or other provisions in the existing agreement, or unless otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties. A wireless service provider may require the rates of this section for new small cells sites that are deployed after the operative date of this section in accordance with applicable change of law provisions in the existing agreements." This language has raised concerns on the part of opponents and the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which drafted similar, but not identical, language. The Committee may wish to amend this language to resolve these concerns.
- Contradictory. On page 11, beginning in line 17, this bill states: "Except as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b), nothing in this section shall be construed to modify the rules and compensation structure that have been adopted for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code pursuant to state and federal law, including, but not limited to, decisions of the Public Utility Commission adopting rules and a compensation structure for an attachment to a utility pole owned by an electrical corporation or telephone corporation, as those terms are defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code." This exception appears to contradict the intent of the remainder of this language. The Committee may wish to remove this exception.
- Previous Legislation. AB 2788 (Gatto) of 2016 was similar to this bill. AB 2788 was not heard in this committee, as it left the Assembly addressing a different subject. AB 2788 was referred to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, but was never heard.
AB 57 (Quirk), Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015, provided that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if: a city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within the reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the FCC; all required public notices have been provided regarding the application; and, the applicant has provided a notice to the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed.
AB 162 (Holden) of 2013 would have prohibited a local government from denying an eligible facilities request, as defined, for a modification of an existing wireless telecommunications facility or structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the wireless telecommunications facility or structure, and would have required a local government to act on an eligible facilities request within 90 days of receipt. The bill was referred to this Committee, but was never heard.
AB 1027 (Buchanan), Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011, required local publicly-owned electric utilities, including irrigation districts, to make appropriate space and capacity on and in their utility poles and support structures available for use by cable television corporations, video service providers, and telephone corporations.
SB 1627 (Kehoe), Chapter 676, Statutes of 2006, required local governments to administratively approve applications to place wireless communications equipment on structures where such equipment is already located if specified conditions have been met, and prohibited local governments from conditioning approval of applications for permits for wireless facilities in specified ways.
- Arguments in Support. CTIA, sponsor of this measure, in a coalition letter with the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, Crown Castle, the California Peace Officers Association, the California State Sheriffs' Association, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, QualComm, the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the Congress of California Seniors, Tracfone, the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, CompTIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support, state, "Wireless technology has revolutionized our lives and the way that we communicate. It has transformed how our businesses and schools operate and improved how our cities function.
"Today, smartphones, laptops and tablets are basic tools in our everyday lives. In fact, there are more wireless devices in California than there are people. Further, mobile data usage has grown by more than 2,300% since 2010. To accommodate skyrocketing demand and prepare wireless networks for the next generation, those networks must be updated today. SB 649 will help make that happen.
"Small cell wireless facilities are being deployed today to meet this increased demand for data, enhancing capacity on today’s 4G LTE wireless networks and establishing the backbone for the next generation of wireless networks, called 5G. 5G will offer the bandwidth to accommodate billions of devices at the speed required for our connected society.
"SB 649 is an essential measure to keep California at the leading edge of this new technology. Other states across the country and around the globe are already encouraging deployment of gigabit wireless internet by streamlining deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure. SB 649 will provide a clear path for California communities to deploy the needed infrastructure by asking for no public subsidies or use of taxpayer dollars. Instead, SB 649 simply asks for clear guidance for wireless providers to invest millions of dollars of their own money.
"By laying out a clear set of rules for all to follow, SB 649 will help communities:
- Open the path to California 'smart cities' with solutions delivering significant energy and transportation benefits and creating a more 'connected world';
- Provide up to 100 times faster speeds – gigabit internet in your pocket – enabling download of a full HD movie in seconds;
- Improve public safety services and help save lives with advanced communications and logistics and faster response times; and
- Create thousands of new jobs via infrastructure development and increased economic competitiveness.
"SB 649 creates a reliable set of guidelines for communities in making decisions on the deployment of small cell wireless technology with a process that reflects their much smaller size and footprint than traditional cell phone towers. It also ensures local governments retain oversight for health and safety conditions building and encroachment permits, local code compliance, and feasible design and collocation standards.
"Given the way Californians live today, citizens, businesses, public safety agencies and government demand the latest technology and the highest speeds in wireless communications. A clear process is needed so network developers can plan appropriately and avoid unnecessary delays in delivering required cutting-edge services.
"Nearly a dozen states across the country have already moved to streamline the deployment of small cell wireless infrastructure to accommodate consumers’ insatiable data demands and ready themselves for 5G wireless technology. It is imperative that California retain its position as a global leader in technology and innovation. SB 649 is a smart, cooperative approach that tells the rest of the country and the world that California is ready for investment and will retain its position as leader in innovation."
- Arguments in Opposition. The California Chapter of the American Planning Association, the League of California Cities, the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California and Protect our Local Streets Coalition, in opposition, write, "SB 649 eliminates public input, full local environmental and design review, mandates the leasing of publicly owned infrastructure and eliminates the ability for local governments to negotiate leases or any public benefit for the installation of 'small cell' equipment on taxpayer funded property. These not-so-small 'small cell' structures would be required to be allowed on public property in any zone in a city or county and would be subject to a confusing permitting process carved out for the sole benefit of the wireless industry…
"(Section 4 of the bill) vastly expands the scope of SB 649 beyond 'small cells,' and would broadly preempt regulation of virtually any communications facilities within local rights-of-way. This would not merely limit, but would implicitly repeal the longstanding provisions of California law allowing local governments to reasonably regulate privately-owned facilities placed within the streets and roads for which they are responsible. Local regulations protect public health and safety by ensuring that equipment placed within the right-of-way does not cause traffic hazards, or interfere with sight distances necessary to avoid accidents at busy intersections – and protect neighborhood character and quality of life through reasonable concealment and similar aesthetic conditions. It is difficult to overstate the hazards to the public welfare of all Californians threatened by SB 649’s wholesale elimination of such local authority…
"While the wireless industry promises local governments will retain their discretion, the bill eliminates the full discretion locals currently have to require that such equipment blends into the communities they are entering and that providers maintain their equipment. The bill eliminates the ability of a city or county to negotiate any public benefit such as providing network access for the local library. Additionally, this bill places the entire burden on local governments to adopt a complicated set of ordinances, again increasing costs to the local jurisdiction, at the same time the bill caps the flexible revenue cities and counties can generate for public services such as infrastructure, police, fire, libraries, human services or looming pension obligations.
"SB 649 forces local government to rent space for small cells on public property at rates far below fair market value and requires that every jurisdiction, in order to use its own public property, provide 'substantial evidence' that the space is needed by that community. Rents from the use of public property, which every other for-profit business pays, help defray the cost of essential public services that are otherwise provided at taxpayer expense. SB 649 sets a dangerous precedent for other private industries to seek similar treatment, further eroding the ability to fund local services.
"SB 649 proposes to calculate the maximum rate for these non-consensual leases using a formula designed only for electricity and telephone poles – a limited category of installations, with fairly uniform features and costs. Application of this formula to the vast variety of 'vertical infrastructure' covered by SB 649 is both unfair and uncertain. The capital and operational cost components for these facilities vary widely in both complexity and amount, and (this formula is) virtually certain to result in continual disputes and confusion statewide.
"While the supporters continue to state that the purpose of the bill is to deploy in rural or underserved areas of the state, there is still no requirement for such deployment. This bill does not provide anything to our constituents in exchange for giving up our public property. The bill explicitly allows for a discretionary review in areas within the coastal zone or in historical districts. Cities and counties that are not included in this exemption are essentially left with little ability to clearly apply design standards. With these amendments, it’s clear that supporters of the bill concede discretionary review is important… but only for certain areas of the state.
"Small cells are just in the beginning stages of being deployed. Given that many jurisdictions haven’t even processed a small cell permit yet, or only handled a small number, it is unclear why there is such an urgent need for this bill. This bill is being passed with the assumption that there will be issues, which supporters have yet to demonstrate. What other types of structures or industries will be next in line to demand free or low cost access to public property to boost corporate profit margins? While (we) support the deployment of wireless facilities to ensure that Californians have access to telecommunications services, this goal is not inherently in conflict with appropriate local planning and appropriate fee negotiations on publically owned infrastructure."
- Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Communications and Conveyance Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: (Includes support and opposition letters received by the Committee's deadline which may address a prior version of the bill)
Support
CTIA [SPONSOR]
59DaysOfCode
100 Black Men of Long Beach
American Indian Chamber of Commerce of California
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association
Asian Resources Inc.
AT&T
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce
Black Business Association
California Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
California Friday Night Live Partnership
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California State Conference of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People
California State Sheriffs’ Association
California Urban Partnership
Support (continued)
California Utilities Emergency Association
CALinnovates
CalTech San Diego
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce
Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce
Chinese American Association of Solano County
Cleanteach San Diego
Coalition of Concerned California Communities
Community Technology Network
Community Women Vital Voices
CompTIA
Concerned Black Men of Los Angeles
Concerned Citizens Community Involvement
Congress of California Seniors
Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for
Advocacy and Leadership
Council on American-Islamic Relations, California
Crown Castle
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Downtown San Diego Partnership
East Bay Leadership Council
Elderly Foundation
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow Foundation
Eskaton Foundation
Exceptional Parents Unlimited
Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation
Fresno Center for New Americans
Fresno Chamber of Commerce
Fresno County Economic Development Corporation
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Hacker Lab
Hispanic Chamber of e-Commerce
Hispanic Heritage Foundation
I/O Labs
Imagine H2O
InBiz Latino-North County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Invictus Foundation
Jobs and Housing Coalition
Support (continued)
Krimson and Kreme, Inc.
Lake County Sheriff
Latin Business Association
Latino Council
Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy Project
Lifestyle Stroke Foundation
Lighthouse Counseling & Family Resource Center
LIME Foundation
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Urban League
Marjaree Mason Center
Meeting of the Minds
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Monterey County Business Council
Museum of the African Diaspora
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Eureka
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inglewood/South Bay
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Los Angeles
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, North San Diego
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Riverside
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, Sacramento
National Association of Women Business Owners
National City Public Safety Foundation
National Latina Business Women Association of Los Angeles
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Organization of Chinese Americans
Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center
PulsePoint
Qualcomm
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Russian American Media
Sabio Enterprises Inc.
Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps
Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund
San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Diego North Economic Development Council
Support (continued)
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Joaquin Pride Center
San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Slavic American Chamber of Commerce
Society for the Blind
Solano Community College Educational Foundation
South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
Southeast Community Development Corporation
Southern California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California
Sprint
T-Mobile US
TechNet
The East Los Angeles Community Union
The Arc California
The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals
The Observer Media Group
The Urban Hive
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
Tracfone
Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
United Policyholders
Urban Corps of San Diego County
Urban League of San Diego County
Verizon
Veteran’s Association of North County
Voluntary Organizations Active in a Disaster
Volunteers of America Southwest
WEAVE, Inc.
Wireless Infrastructure Association
Women’s Intercultural Network
Individual letters (9)
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter
American Public Works Association
Association of Environmental Professionals
Bay Area Educators for Safe Tech
Brentwood Community Council
California Brain Tumor Association
California Chapters of the American Public Works Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
Opposition (continued)
California REALTORS
California Park & Recreation Society
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
Cities of: Albany, Alameda, Aliso Viejo, Arcadia, Azusa, Bakersfield, Bellflower, Benicia,
Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Big Bear Lake, Brawley, Brea, Buena Park, Burbank, Camarillo,
Capitola, Carpinteria, Chino, Chino Hills, Chula Vista, Citrus Heights, Claremont,
Clayton, Cloverdale, Colfax, Colma, Concord, Corona, Coronado, Costa Mesa, Culver
City, Cupertino, Davis, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Dublin, Eastvale, El Centro, Elk Grove,
Emeryville, Encinitas, Escalon, Fairfax, Farmersville, Fontana, Fountain Valley,
Fremont, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Goleta, Hanford, Hayward, Hemet, Hermosa Beach, Hesperia, Highland, Hillsborough, Huntington Beach, Indio, Indian Wells, Inglewood, La Cañada Flintridge, La Habra, La Mirada, La Quinta, La Verne, Lafayette, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lakeport, Lakewood, Lathrop, Livermore, Lodi, Lomita, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Lomita, Mammoth Lakes, Manteca, Martinez, Menifee, Merced, Mission Viejo, Modesto, Monrovia, Montclair, Monterey, Monterey Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Murrieta, National City, Nevada City, Newport Beach, Norco, Norwalk, Oakland, Oakley, Oceanside, Ontario, Pacific Grove, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Palo Alto, Palos Verdes Estates, Paramount, Pasadena, Paso Robles, Piedmont, Pismo Beach, Placentia, Pleasanton, Point Arena, Pomona, Porterville, Rancho Cordova, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Richmond, Riverbank, Riverside, Rocklin, Rohnert Park, Rosemead, Roseville, Salinas, San Anselmo, San Buenaventura, San Carlos, San Gabriel, San Jose, San Leandro, San Marcos, San Marino, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Clarita, Santa Cruz, Santa Fe Springs, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Santee, Scotts Valley, Sebastopol, Signal Hill, Stanton, Sunnyvale, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Turlock, Tulare, Tustin, Ukiah, Union City, Upland, Vacaville, Vallejo, Ventura, Victorville, Vista, Walnut, Walnut Creek, West Covina, West Hollywood, Whittier, and Yuba
City-County Streetlight Association
City Manager Brian Loventhal, City of Campbell
Coalition of Concerned California Communities
Councilmember Mike Bonin, City of Los Angeles
Councilmember Bill DeHart, City of Turlock
Counties of: Del Norte, Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Monterey,
Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo,
San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sonoma,
Tehama, Tuolumne, and Ventura
Ecological Options Network
EMF Safety Network
EMR Protection Forum
Green Sangha
Health & Habitat Inc.
Law Offices of Harry V. Lehmann PC
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
League of California Cities, Redwood Empire Division
Opposition (continued)
League of California Cities, Riverside County Division
League of California Cities, San Diego County Division
Lodi District Chamber of Commerce
Marin Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Mayors & Councilmembers Association of Sonoma
Mayor Donald P. Wagner, City of Irvine
Mayor Clyde Roberson, City of Monterey
Mayor Sue Higgins, City of Oakley
Mayor Len Augustine, City of Vacaville
Mayor Gary Soiseth, City of Turlock
Mono County Community Development Department
MuniServices
Northern California Power Agency
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Physicians for Safe Technology
Protect our Local Streets Coalition
Radiation Research Trust
Rural County Representatives of California
SafeWater Marin Alliance
Sage Associates
San Francisco Water Power Sewer
Scientists for Wired Technology
Southern California Public Power Authority
The Utility Reform Network
Town of Apple Valley
Town of Corte Madera
Town of Danville
Town of Hillsborough
Town of Mammoth Lakes
Town of Moraga
Town of Portola Valley
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
Union Sanitary District
Urban Counties of California
Ventura Council of Governments
Veterans for Radiation Safety
Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowner Association
Windheim EMF Solutions
Wireless Radiation Alert Network
Your Own Health and Fitness
Individual letters (15)
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 649
:
SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/4/17
AYES: Hueso, Morrell, Bradford, Cannella, Hertzberg, Hill, McGuire, Skinner, Stern, Vidak, Wiener
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/26/17
AYES: McGuire, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 5/25/17
AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
DIGEST:
This bill establishes a statewide framework for streamlining the permit siting process of small cell wireless facilities that meet specified requirements. Specifically, this bill requires an administrative permit in lieu of a discretionary permit, limits fees to between $100 and $850 for small cell installations in the utility right-of-way, ensures access to most vertical infrastructure in the utility right-of-way and also within a commercial or industrial zone. This bill also requires permits for wireless telecommunications facilities would be automatically renewed for equivalent durations, as specified.
Existing law:
- Establishes specified limitations, preemptions and preservation of local zoning authority in relation to the siting of personal wireless service facilities as part of the many provisions of the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996. (Other provisions, see Policy Committee Analyses) (47 United States Code §332)
- Limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by the city or county to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, as specified. (California Government Code §65850.6)
- Provides that no state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. (47 United States Code §253)
- Provides that a state or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such a tower or base station. (47 United States Code §1455 (a))
- Establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles, providing the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. (Public Utilities Code §767.5)
- Establishes a framework, process, fees, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to municipal utility poles, providing for safety and reasonable terms and conditions. (Public Utilities Code §9510 et seq.)
- Provides that a wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies several requirements, as specified. (California Government Code §65850.6)
This bill:
- Defines a “small cell” as a wireless telecommunications facility that meets the following qualifications:
- All antennas on the structure, excluding associated equipment total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether in a single or separate array.
- The associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet, provided any individual piece does not exceed nine cubic feet. The calculation of equipment volume excludes specified ancillary equipment.
- Specifies that a small cell includes a micro wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches high, and that has an exterior antenna no longer than 11 inches.
- Specifies that a small cell does not include coaxial or fiber optic cables that do not exclusively provide service to the cell, or wireless facilities placed in a specified historic district or coastal zone.
- Requires a small cell to be a permitted use, subject only to specified requirements or conditions, if it satisfies the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in the public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, as specified.
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Authorizes a city or county to require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit in connection with placement outside the public right of way, or a specified encroachment permit, and any additional ministerial permits, provided all permits are issued within specified timeframes.
- Prohibits permits from being subject to:
- Provision of additional services, including in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
- The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as otherwise provided in the bill.
- Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size, or smaller.
- The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in the public right of way or public utility easements. Vertical infrastructure is defined as all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right of way or utility easements and meant for communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions.
- Requires a city or county to make its vertical infrastructure available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
- Authorizes a city or county to reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if it adopts a resolution that capacity is needed for projected city or county use.
- Requires fees to be tiered or flat and within a range of $100 to $850 per small cell per year, indexed for inflation from this bill’s effective date.
- Prohibits a city or county from discriminating against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county, and require it to make space available on terms that are at least as favorable as those provided for comparable commercial projects or uses.
- Specifies that nothing in the bill would alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law.
- Specifies that existing agreements regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions.
- Requires automatic renewal of permits for telecommunications facilities, unless a city or county makes a finding that the facility does not comply with codes and conditions in place at the time the permit was originally approved.
Background
Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of wireless devices in the marketplace, from cell phones, tablets, health monitors, and smart appliances. Satisfying the consumer demand for efficient and reliable wireless communications is largely dependent on infrastructure that has required a network of large macro cell towers (most over 200 feet tall). These large structures have dotted the landscape in various shapes and forms, from a very noticeable large antenna to something disguised as a palm tree.
Small Cell. Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network, typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Each small cell can only work with a corresponding wireless service provider. Unlike larger macrocell large towers, small cells will need to be deployed at greater volumes in more concentrated areas. These smaller wireless facilities can augment the capacity of the wireless bandwidth of the macrocell towers.
Planning and Zoning. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan and provides for the adoption of zoning ordinance that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, among other things. The Permit Streamlining Act requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits. Providers of wireless telecommunications services must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Similarly, wireless carriers must seek local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on structures and facilities where that equipment already exists, which are referred to as collocations.
Existing law, as enacted by SB 1627 (Kehoe, Chapter 676, Statues of 2006), requires local governments to approve collocations through ministerial processes, and prohibits local governments from limiting the duration of permits for wireless sites to less than 10 years, absent good reason. Existing law, as enacted by AB 57 (Quirk, Chapter 684, Statutes of 2015), specifies that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if a local government does not act on a permit application within reasonable time periods specified in federal regulations.
Telecommunications companies have the right to access utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state and federal regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles and municipal utility poles, providing the CPUC the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Telecommunications companies are authorized to erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but existing law authorizes them to regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the public right-of-way. In addition, investor owned utilities and municipal utilities can only charge cost-based rates for attaching to their utility poles.
These restrictions do not apply to other publicly-owned infrastructure in the right-of-way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can continue to impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. Since the number of small cells needed to cover an area is much higher than for traditional wireless facilities, carriers and cities have negotiated agreements and streamlined permit processes for the deployment of small cells that require lease payments to use city infrastructure. Currently, these agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis, and, as such, lease rates can vary significantly among cities from a hundred dollars to thousands of dollars.
Home Rule. Local officials’ first duty is to protect the interests of their constituents. They have broad authority to regulate activities to preserve the public welfare, and they have developed processes in accordance with that duty for permitting wireless telecommunications facilities. Some jurisdictions impose more conditions than others due to specific local circumstances, and the FCC has recognized this need. By making small cells permitted uses, SB 649 extends by-right development to small cells, and it prohibits local governments from establishing discretionary permitting processes in rights of way and commercial and industrial zones. SB 649 requires local governments to offer up their vertical infrastructure in the rights of way and commercial and industrial zones for use by other entities and removes their ability to charge fair rent by capping lease fees for vertical infrastructure to an amount that is between $100 and $850.
Environmental Health Effects. Some of the opponents of this bill have raised concerns regarding the health impacts from radio frequency/microwave radiation associated with wireless communications. These commenters present several studies, as well as a California Medical Association resolution supporting efforts to reevaluate microwave safety exposure and efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to a level that do not cause harm. While these comments raise very serious concerns, federal law, limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by states and local governments in so far as a proposed project is in compliance with FCC requirements. However, those who oppose this bill out of concern for the health impacts of wireless technologies are not likely to be satisfied with the standards the FCC has established.
Merits Correction. The language in the bill related to the maximum size of the small cell equipment attached to a pole merits additional language related to the maximum size of the associated equipment not on the pole. The author has agreed to work with the Committee on Governance and Finance to make this correction should the bill move forward.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown, potentially reimbursable mandate costs, to the extent that the Commission on State Mandates determines that certain costs incurred by local governments are not recoverable by fees. Existing law, as enacted by AB 1027 (Buchanan, Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011) requires a publicly owned utility to make appropriate space and capacity on its utility poles and support structures available for use by a communication provider. That measure authorized local entities to charge an annual fee for use of a pole, and limited the fee to the annual cost of ownership of the proportion of the pole dedicated to the telecommunications equipment. Any costs incurred by a public utility that exceeded the amount of fees charged for pole attachments could be passed on to utility customers.
Cities and counties currently negotiate lease rates for small cell attachments on publicly owned vertical infrastructure that is market based, and many local governments may use excess lease revenues to pay for other public services or to subsidize the extension of wireless service in underserved areas. This bill limits the fees that a city or county may charge for the installation of a small cell telecommunications facility on publicly owned vertical infrastructure to a range of $100 to $850 per small cell per year. Since these rates are much lower than what some current agreements provide, many local governments will lose significant discretionary revenues. Staff notes that loss of local revenues does not, on its own, constitute a reimbursable mandate.
To the extent that the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill imposes a higher level of service on cities and counties, and the fees specified in the bill are insufficient to fully offset a city or county’s costs to accommodate the attachment of small cells to vertical infrastructure, this bill may be deemed a reimbursable mandate. This bill would require cities and counties to negotiate lease rates with wireless service providers (currently an optional activity), draft master agreements, and determine actual annual costs associated with leasing space on a particular pole or set of poles.
CTIA (source)
59DaysOfCode
American Indian Chamber of Commerce of California
Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Assn.
Asian Resources Inc.
AT&T
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce
Black Business Association
California Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
California Friday Night Live Partnership
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn
California State Conference of the National Association
of Advancement of Colored People
California State Sheriffs’ Association
California Urban Partnership
California Utilities Emergency Association
CALinnovates
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce
Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce
Chinese American Association of Solano County
Community Technology Network
Community Women Vital Voices
Concerned Citizens Community Involvement
Congress of California Seniors
Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for
Advocacy and Leadership
Council on American-Islamic Relations, California
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Downtown San Diego Partnership
East Bay Leadership Council
Elderly Foundation
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
Eskaton Foundation
Exceptional Parents Unlimited
Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation
Fresno Center for New Americans
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Hacker Lab
Hispanic Chamber of e-Commerce
Hispanic Heritage Foundation
I/O Labs
Imagine H2O
InBiz Latino-North County Hispanic Chamber
Invictus Foundation
Jobs and Housing Coalition
Krimson and Kreme, Inc.
Lake County Sheriff
Latin Business Association
Latino Council
Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy Project
Lifestyle Stroke Foundation
Lighthouse Counseling & Family Resource Center
LIME Foundation
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Urban League
Marjaree Mason Center
Meeting of the Minds
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Monterey County Business Council
Museum of the African Diaspora
National Association of Advancement of Colored People
– Eureka
National Association of Advancement of Colored People
– Inglewood/South Bay
National Association of Advancement of Colored People
– Los Angeles
National Association of Advancement of Colored People
– North San Diego
National Association of Advancement of Colored People
– Riverside
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate
Professionals – Sacramento
National City Public Safety Foundation
National Latina Business Women Association of Los Angeles
Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Organization of Chinese Americans
Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce Board of Director
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Puertas Abiertas Community Resource Center
PulsePoint
Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
Russian American Media
Sabio Enterprises Inc.
Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps
Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund
San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
San Diego North Economic Development Council
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp
San Joaquin Pride Center
San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Slavic American Chamber
Society for the Blind
Solano Community College Educational Foundation
South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce
Southeast Community Development Corporation
Southern California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California
Sprint
T-Mobile US
The East Los Angeles Community Union
The Arc California
The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professional
The Observer Media Group
The Urban Hive
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
Tulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
United Policyholders
Urban Corps of San Diego County
Urban League of San Diego County
Verizon
Veteran’s Association of North County
Voluntary Organizations Active in a Disaster
Volunteers of America Southwest
WEAVE, Inc.
Wireless Infrastructure Association
Women’s Intercultural Network
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/30/17)
Association of Environmental Professionals
California Chapter of the American Planning Association
California Chapters of the American Public Works
Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
Cities of Albany, Arcadia, Azusa, Bakersfield, Benicia, Beverly Hills, Big Bear Lake, Buena Park, Burbank, Camarillo, Campbell, Capitola, Carpinteria, Chino Hills, Citrus Heights, Claremont, Cloverdale, Concord, Corona, Coronado, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Dublin, Eastvale, El Centro, Elk Grove, Emeryville, Encinitas, Fontana Fountain Valley, Fremont, Fullerton, Hayward, Hermosa Beach, Hesperia, Huntington Beach, Indio, Indian Wells, Inglewood, Irvine, La Cañada, La Habra, La Quinta, La Verne, Lafayette, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lakeport, Lakewood, Lodi, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Lomita, Manteca, Merced, Mission Viejo, Modesto, Monterey, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Morgan Hill, Murrieta, National City, Nevada City, Newport Beach, Norwalk, Oakley, Oceanside, Palm Desert, Palmdale, Palos Verdes Estates, Pasadena, Piedmont, Pismo Beach, Placentia, Point Arena, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Palos Verdes, Richmond, Riverside, Rocklin, Rosemead, Roseville, Sacramento, San Carlos, San Jose, San Leandro, San Marcos, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Santee, Signal Hill, Sunnyvale, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Tulare, Ukiah, Union City, Vallejo, Ventura, Vista, Walnut, West Covina, West Hollywood, and Whittier
County of Ventura
Ecological Options Network
EMF Safety Network
Kern County
League of California Cities
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
Northern California Power Agency
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Protect our Local Streets Coalition
Rural County Representatives of California
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Scientists for Wired Technology
Southern California Public Power Authority
The Utility Reform Network
Towns of Danville, Hillsborough, Mammoth Lakes, and Portola Valley
Urban Counties of California
Ventura Council of Governments
Several Individuals
5/30/17 17:29:38
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular Session
SB 649 (Hueso) - Wireless telecommunications facilities
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary:
SB 649 would establish a streamlined permitting process for small cell wireless facilities, subject only to specified conditions, and limit the fees that local governments may charge for placement of small cells on city or county owned vertical infrastructure, such as streetlight and traffic signal poles.
Fiscal Impact:
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable mandate costs, to the extent that the Commission on State Mandates determines that certain costs incurred by local governments are not recoverable by fees. (see staff comments)
Background:
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan and provides for the adoption of zoning ordinance that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, among other things. The Permit Streamlining Act, requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development permits. Providers of wireless telecommunications services must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Similarly, wireless carriers must seek local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on structures and facilities where that equipment already exists, which are referred to as collocations.
Existing law, as enacted by SB 1627 (Kehoe), Chap. 676/2006, requires local governments to approve collocations ministerially, and prohibits local governments from limiting the duration of permits for wireless sites to less than 10 years absent good reason. Existing law, as enacted by AB 57 (Quirk), Chap. 684/2015, specifies that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if a local government does not act on a permit application within reasonable time periods specified in federal regulations.
Telecommunications companies have the right to access utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state and federal regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility (IOU) poles and municipal utility poles, providing the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Telecommunications companies are authorized to erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but existing law authorizes them to regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the public right-of-way. In addition, IOUs and municipal utilities can only charge cost-based rates for attaching to their poles.
These restrictions do not apply to other publicly-owned infrastructure in the right-of-way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can continue to impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. Since the number of small cells needed to cover an area is much higher than for traditional wireless facilities, carriers and cities have negotiated agreements and streamlined permit processes for the deployment of small cells that require lease payments to use city infrastructure. Currently these agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis and lease rates can vary significantly from hundreds of dollars to as high as $4,200 per pole per year.
Proposed Law:
SB 649 would establish a streamlined permitting process for small cell wireless facilities, and limit the permitting fees for the placement of small cells on vertical infrastructure. Specifically, this bill would:
- Define a “small cell” as a wireless telecommunications facility that meets the following qualifications:
- All antennas on the structure, excluding associated equipment total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether in a single or separate array.
- The associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet, provided any individual piece does not exceed nine cubic feet. The calculation of equipment volume excludes specified ancillary equipment.
- Specify that a small cell includes a micro wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches high, and that has an exterior antenna no longer than 11 inches.
- Specify that a small cell does not include coaxial or fiber optic cables that do not exclusively provide service to the cell, or wireless facilities placed in a specified historic district or coastal zone.
- Require a small cell to be a permitted use, subject only to specified requirements or conditions, if it satisfies the following requirements:
- The small cell is located in the public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
- The small cell complies with all applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations, as specified.
- The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.
- Authorize a city or county to require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a building permit in connection with placement outside the public right of way, or a specified encroachment permit, and any additional ministerial permits, provided all permits are issued within specified timeframes.
- Prohibit permits from being subject to:
- Provision of additional services, including in-kind contributions from the applicant such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
- The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as otherwise provided in the bill.
- Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size, or smaller.
- The regulation of any micro wireless facilities mounted on a span of wire.
- Prohibit a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in the public right of way or public utility easements. Vertical infrastructure is defined as all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right of way or utility easements and meant for communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions.
- Require a city or county to make its vertical infrastructure available for the placement of small cells under fair and reasonable fees, terms, and conditions, which may include feasible design and collocation standards.
- Authorize a city or county to reserve capacity on vertical infrastructure if it adopts a resolution that capacity is needed for projected city or county use.
- Require fees to be tiered or flat and within a range of $100 to $850 per small cell per year, indexed for inflation from this bill’s effective date.
- Prohibit a city or county from discriminating against the deployment of a small cell on property owned by the city or county, and require it to make space available on terms that are at least as favorable as those provided for comparable commercial projects or uses.
- Specify that nothing in the bill would alter, modify, or amend any franchise or franchise requirements under state or federal law.
- Specify that existing agreements regarding the leasing or licensing of vertical infrastructure remain in effect, subject to applicable termination provisions.
- Require automatic renewal of permits for telecommunications facilities, unless a city or county makes a finding that the facility does not comply with codes and conditions in place at the time the permit was originally approved.
Staff Comments:
Existing law, as enacted by AB 1027 (Buchanan), Chap. 580/2011, requires a publicly owned utility to make appropriate space and capacity on its utility poles and support structures available for use by a communication provider. That measure authorized local entities to charge an annual fee for use of a pole, and limited the fee to the annual cost of ownership of the proportion of the pole dedicated to the telecommunications equipment. Any costs incurred by a public utility that exceeded the amount of fees charged for pole attachments could be passed on to utility customers.
Cities and counties currently negotiate lease rates for small cell attachments on publicly owned vertical infrastructure that is market based, and many local governments may use excess lease revenues to pay for other public services or to subsidize the extension of wireless service in underserved areas. This bill limits the fees that a city or county may charge for the installation of a small cell telecommunications facility on publicly owned vertical infrastructure to a range of $100 to $850 per small cell per year. Since these rates are much lower than what some current agreements provide, many local governments will lose significant discretionary revenues. Staff notes that loss of local revenues does not, on its own, constitute a reimbursable mandate.
To the extent that the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill imposes a higher level of service on cities and counties, and the fees specified in the bill are insufficient to fully offset a city or county’s costs to accommodate the attachment of small cells to vertical infrastructure, this bill may be deemed a reimbursable mandate. This bill would require cities and counties to negotiate lease rates with wireless service providers (currently an optional activity), draft master agreements, and determine actual annual costs associated with leasing space on a particular pole or set of poles.
-- END --
AMENDED ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Mike McGuire, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: | SB 649 | Hearing Date: | 4/26/17 |
Author: | Hueso | Tax Levy: | No |
Version: | 3/28/17 | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Favorini-Csorba | ||
Wireless telecommunications facilities
Streamlines permitting and caps local fees for small cell wireless facilities.
Background
Land Use Regulation. The California Constitution allows a city to "make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws, known as the police power of cities." It is from this fundamental power that local governments derive their authority to regulate land through planning, zoning, and building ordinances, thereby protecting public health, safety and welfare.
The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. The Planning and Zoning Law also requires public notice to be given at least 10 days in advance of hearings where most permitting decisions will be made. It also allows residents to appeal permitting decisions and other actions to either a board of appeals or the legislative body of the city or county. Cities and counties may adopt ordinances governing the appeals process.
Providers of wireless telecommunications services (“carriers”) must apply to cities and counties for permits to build structures or other wireless facilities that support wireless telecommunications equipment, like antennae and related devices. Similarly, wireless carriers must seek local approval to place additional telecommunications equipment on facilities where that equipment already exists, known as “collocations.”
New Wireless Technology. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of wireless devices in the marketplace, from cell phones, tablets, health monitors, and smart appliances. Current wireless communication technology is largely dependent on wireless facilities that have required a network of large macro cell towers that are often over 200 feet tall. However, the next generation of wireless technology utilizes “small cells,” which are smaller wireless facilities, usually taking up less than 35 cubic feet of volume. These small cells have much shorter ranges and therefore need to be deployed at greater density in urban areas than traditional macro cell towers. Small cells are needed to support the roll-out of fifth generation mobile technology (5G) that will provide speeds of up 100 times faster than current networks. Some reports estimate the benefits of 5G deployment to exceed $500 billion in gross domestic product growth.
Federal Requirements for Local Decisions on Wireless Facilities. Carriers and local governments have clashed over the extent of local authority to condition or disapprove of wireless facilities. Accordingly, several state and federal laws prescribe aspects of permitting. Two federal laws, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Spectrum Act, require local governments to act within a “reasonable period of time” on permits for siting wireless facilities. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for administering these laws and implementing this requirement. Accordingly, in 2009 and 2014, the FCC issued two decisions to clarify, among other things, the definition of a period of time that is presumed to be reasonable for various categories of wireless telecommunications facilities. Specifically, the FCC established a so-called “shot clock” by ruling that local governments should generally approve or disapprove applications for projects within:
- 60 days for a project that is an “eligible facilities request” under Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code. An eligible facilities request is defined by the FCC as a collocation on an existing facility that does not substantially change its physical dimensions. In practice, these types of applications could include locating additional equipment cabinets on a rooftop that already has wireless facilities.
- 90 days for a project that is a collocation that substantially changes the dimensions of the facility, but do not substantially change its size. For example, this could include a project that increases the height of a tower in a public right of way by more than 10%.
- 150 days for projects that are new sites for wireless facilities.
State Law Governing Wireless Facilities and Right-of-Way Access. Responding to a concern that local governments were delaying approval of permit applications for wireless sites, in 2006 the Legislature required collocations to be approved ministerially, and prohibited local governments from limiting the duration of permits for wireless sites to less than 10 years absent good reason (SB 1627, Kehoe). In 2015, citing similar concerns, carriers asked the Legislature to provide greater certainty on timelines for local governments to act on wireless facility permits (AB 57, Quirk). The timelines established by AB 57 are the same as provided under federal law, but AB 57 provides a stronger remedy: the application is deemed approved if the local government fails to act in the required time.
Telecommunications companies have the right to access utility poles in the public right-of-way, governed by a set of state regulations. State law establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles and municipal utility poles, providing the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) the authority to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. Under this framework, telecommunications companies may erect poles and attach to investor-owned and municipal utility poles under specified cost-based rates. Local governments may not block utility pole attachments, but can regulate the time, manner, and place of pole attachments in the right of way under Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the Public Utilities Code. In addition, IOUs and municipal utilities can only charge cost-based rates for attaching to their poles.
However, these restrictions do not apply to other infrastructure in the right of way, such as light poles and streetlights, or outside of the right of way. In those cases, local governments can continue to impose conditions on many types of wireless facilities and negotiate payments for the use of their infrastructure. Since the number of small cells needed to cover an area is much higher than for traditional wireless facilities, carriers and cities have negotiated agreements for the deployment of small cells that require lease payments to use city infrastructure and streamlined permit processes. Currently these agreements are negotiated on an ad hoc basis and can result in fees of over $4,200 per pole per year.
Wireless carriers seeking to expand their existing networks and prepare for next generation technologies want to reduce the time and cost that it takes to deploy small cells.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 649 establishes a nondiscretionary permitting process for small cell wireless facilities and limits the fees that local governments may charge. SB 649 defines small cell to mean a wireless telecommunication facility that meets all of the following conditions:
- Any individual antenna, excluding the associated equipment, is smaller than three cubic feet.
- All antennas on the structure must be less than six cubic feet.
- Any associated equipment does not exceed volume of: (1) 21 cubic feet for poles that can support one or two providers or 28 cubic feet for poles that can support at least three providers; or (2) 28 cubic feet for collocations on nonpole structures that can support less than three providers or 35 cubic feet for collocations on nonpole structures that can support more than three providers.
SB 649 excludes certain ancillary equipment from the calculation of the volume of the small cell, such as concealment elements, a telecommunications demarcation box, and specified incidental electrical components, as well as communications infrastructure extending beyond the telecommunications demarcation box.
Under SB 649, a small cell is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it: (1) is located in the public right-of-way in any zone or in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use; (2) complies with all applicable state and local health and safety regulations; and (3) is not located on a fire department facility.
SB 649 prescribes the types of permits local governments may require for approval of small cells. Specifically, a city or county may only require that the small cell be approved pursuant to a single administrative permit, and that permit must be issued within the time frames required by state and federal law. The administrative permit may require the same administrative permit requirements as imposed on similar construction projects and must be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. The permit application may also require the submission of additional information showing that the small cell complies the FCC’s regulations concerning radio frequency emissions. SB 649 does not allow the permit to require:
- Provision of additional services, including in-kind contributions such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
- The submission of any additional information other than that required of similar construction projects, except as otherwise provided in the bill.
- Limitations on routine maintenance or the replacement of small cells with small cells that are substantially similar, the same size, or smaller.
- The regulation of any antennas mounted on cable strands.
SB 649 also precludes a city or county from the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public right-of-way or public utility easements. As defined in the bill, vertical infrastructure means all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right-of-way or public utility easements and used for communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, signage, or similar functions. SB 649 requires a city to make its vertical infrastructure available under fair and reasonable fees, terms, and conditions and on a nondiscriminatory basis for small cells.
SB 649 caps fees for leasing of vertical infrastructure to the lesser of either: (1) the costs of ownership of the percentage of the volume of the capacity of the vertical infrastructure rendered unusable by a small cell; or (2) the rate produced by applying the FCC formula for pole attachments.
For city- or county-owned property outside of the right of way, a city or county cannot unreasonably discriminate in granting leases or licenses, and a city or county must authorize the installation of a small cell to the same extent the city or county permits access to that property for commercial projects or uses. These installations must be subject to reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.
SB 649 requires that a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility be renewed for an equivalent duration as the initial permit, unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “SB 649 recognizes the public-policy benefit and exploding consumer demand for greater, faster access to next-generation wireless networks – and establishes a reliable and standardized process for siting the physical infrastructure necessary to meet that demand. For California to remain technologically competitive and to ensure the benefits of innovation are reaching every community, we must do all we can – as fast as we can – to make next-generation 5G wireless networks a reality. In fact, recent studies have shown that widespread 5G investment in California will generate billions in economic growth and billions more in savings from wireless-enabled smart community solutions – lowered energy use, reduced traffic and fuel costs and improved public safety applications. But building the wireless network of tomorrow requires the rapid deployment of small cell structures. SB 649 does not affect the ability of local governments to manage its public rights of way or to impose reasonable fees, terms and conditions to access to city or county owned property. This bill is designed to benefit California consumers and businesses, who have overwhelmingly told us that they want California to stay at the forefront of the wireless economy.”
2. Home rule. Local officials’ first duty is to protect the interests of their constituents. They have broad authority to regulate activities to preserve the public welfare, and they have developed processes in accordance with that duty for permitting wireless telecommunications facilities. Some jurisdictions impose more conditions than others due to specific local circumstances, and the FCC has recognized this need. SB 649 goes well beyond federal law to strip local governments of this authority. By making small cells permitted uses, SB 649 extends by-right development to small cells, and it stops local governments from establishing discretionary permitting processes—even in historic districts if they allow any kind of commercial or industrial uses. If local officials can’t exercise discretion, they can’t regulate aesthetics or other concerns in response to public comments. The bill also restricts local governments to requiring only one permit, making local governments choose between building permits and encroachment permits, with potential public safety consequences. And SB 649 goes even further than other by-right proposals because it require local governments to offer up their vertical infrastructure for use by other entities and removes their ability to charge fair rent by capping lease fees for vertical infrastructure to an amount that is a small fraction of the rates in current agreements between carriers and local governments. SB 649 sets a concerning precedent that reappropriates taxpayer funded infrastructure for private benefit. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 649 to increase the cap on fees, provide that existing agreements are not impaired, and make clear that local governments can retain control over their own infrastructure.
3. Where’s the beef? While anecdotes about unreasonable local obstruction of new telecommunications facilities exist, the scope of this problem is difficult to quantify. While some obstructionism undoubtedly occurs, other communities are faithfully adhering to applicable state and federal law. In fact, small cell deployment is already occurring in cities throughout California and the country. Carriers argue that high fees and slow permitting processes hinder the deployment of small cells, but local officials and their constituents want better wireless service as well. Under current law, local officials are empowered to balance these competing considerations by charging what the market will bear for the use of their property and by revising their permitting programs to make it easier on carriers, while keeping in mind that they risk losing access to the service. Where it’s worth it for both sides, carriers and local governments will agree.
4. What’s good for the goose…. Wireless telecommunications carriers are not the only companies that provide wireless services; cable companies are deploying competing technology of their own in local communities throughout the state. The cable industry is concerned that SB 649 gives carriers an unfair advantage by easing rules for their technology while leaving out functionally similar technology used by cable to provide WiFi. Similarly, cable companies pay franchise fees of as much as 5 percent of gross revenues to operate in local jurisdictions, while SB 649 slashes the fees that carriers must pay. At the end of the day, shouldn’t companies that provide similar services from the end-user’s perspective be treated the same way?
5. Too soon. Small cells form the foundation of next generation 5G networks. But this is a nascent technology, and small cells themselves have only been deployed for a few years. As such, the regulatory framework around small cells is just now being fleshed out: in December 2016, the FCC began soliciting comments in response to a petition for a declaratory ruling on the streamlining of small cell siting, and last month the CPUC began soliciting comments on whether pole attachment rates should be harmonized and whether access to the right-of-way should be expanded. These proceedings could have a major effect on carriers’ and local governments’ rights when it comes to siting small cells. Local governments are also just beginning to negotiate rates and procedures for small cell deployments and need time to understand the issues they present and how best to permit them. While carriers want to get out ahead of regulations before state, federal, and local governments define them, legislators may want to hold off on weighing in until the outcomes of these processes are known and problems can be identified.
6. Let’s be clear. SB 649 allows local governments to require an administrative permit for small cells, but an administrative permit is a concept not used in planning and zoning laws. A permit may be discretionary or ministerial. Since the bill states that small cells cannot be subject to a discretionary permit, the administrative permit must be ministerial. However, the bill’s sponsors state that their intention is to provide the ability for local governments to impose some terms and conditions, such as those currently allowed under PUC 7901 and 7901.1. The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 649 to recast the permitting provisions to allow local governments to impose design and other conditions on these installations consistent with existing law.
7. Charter cities. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn’t define “municipal affairs,” the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it’s an issue of statewide concern. SB 649 includes a legislative finding and declaration that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is a matter of statewide concern. Accordingly, the bill’s provisions apply to all cities and counties in California, including charter cities and counties, although the bill does not explicitly state it.
8. Mandate. The California Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state imposes new programs or additional duties on them. According to the Legislative Counsel’s Office, SB 649 creates a new state-mandated local program. SB 649 disclaims this mandate by saying that no reimbursement is required by this act because local agencies can levy fees to pay for the program.
9. Incoming! The Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee passed SB 649 by a vote of 11-0 on April 4th, 2017.
10. Related legislation. AB 2788 (Gatto, 2016) included provisions similar to SB 649. The bill was referred to both the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee and this committee, but was never heard in either. AB 57 (Quirk, 2015) provided that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if the city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within the reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the FCC, all required public notices have been provided regarding application, and the applicant has provided a notice to the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed. The Senate Governance and Finance Committee approved AB 57 on a vote of six to one.
Support and Opposition
(4/21/17)
Support: *CTIA (Source); 59DaysOfCode; American Indian Chamber of Commerce of CA; Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association; Asian Resources Inc.; AT&T;
Berkeley Chamber of Commerce; Biz Latino; Black Business Association; *California Asian Chamber of Commerce; California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce; *California Foundation for Independent Living Centers; California Friday Night Live Partnership; California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; California Manufacturers & Technology Association; *California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association; *California State Sheriffs’ Association; California Urban Partnership; *California Utilities Emergency Association; CALinnovates;
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce; Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce; Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce; Chinese American Association of Solano County; Community Technology Network; Community Women Vital Voices; Concerned Citizens Community Involvement; Congress of California Seniors; Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership; Council on American-Islamic Relations, California; Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; Downtown San Diego Partnership; Elderly Foundation; El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce; Eskaton Foundation; Exceptional Parents Unlimited; Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation; Fresno Center for New Americans; Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce; Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno; Gateway Chambers Alliance; Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce; Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce; Greater Sacramento Urban League; Hacker Lab; Hispanic Chamber of e-Commerce; Hispanic Heritage Foundation; *I/O Labs; Imagine H2O; InBiz Latino-North County Hispanic Chamber; Invictus Foundation; Jobs and Housing Coalition; Lake County Sheriff; Latin Business Association; Latino Council; Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy Project; Lifestyle Stroke Foundation; Lighthouse Counseling & Family Resource Center; LIME Foundation; Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce; Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce; Long Beach-Inglewood-South Bay Alumni Chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi; Los Angeles Urban League; Meeting of the Minds; Modesto Chamber of Commerce; Monterey County Business Council; National Association of Advancement of Colored People; National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Eureka; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People – Humboldt; National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Inglewood/South Bay; National Association of Advancement of Colored People – North San Diego; National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Riverside; National Association of Advancement of Colored People – San Diego; National City Public Safety Foundation; National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals – Sacramento; National Latina Business Women Association of LA; Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; Oceanside Chamber of Commerce; Orange County Business Council; Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Organization of Chinese Americans; Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors; Peace Officers Research Association of California; Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce; Sabio Enterprises Inc.; Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce; Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Sacramento Metro Chamber; Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps; San Diego Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; *San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation; San Diego North Economic Development Council; San Joaquin Pride Center; San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce; Silicon Valley Leadership Group; Slavic American Chamber; Society for the Blind; Solano Community College Educational Foundation; South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce; Southern California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California; Sprint; T-Mobile US; TechNet; TELACU; The East Los Angeles Community Union; The Arc California; *The Urban Hive; Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce; United Policyholders; Urban Corps of San Diego County; *Urban League of San Diego County; Verizon; Veteran’s Association of North County; Volunteers of America Southwest; Women’s Intercultural Network.
Opposition:
Association of Environmental Professionals; California Chapter of the American Planning Association; *California Chapters of the American Public Works Association; California Cable & Telecommunications Association; California Municipal Utilities Association; California State Association of Counties; City and County of San Francisco; City of Albany; *City of Arcadia;
City of Bakersfield; City of Beverly Hills; City of Buena Park; City of Burbank; *City of Camarillo; City of Chino Hills; City of Citrus Heights; City of Claremont; City of Cloverdale; City of Colton; City of Concord; City of Culver City; City of Diamond Bar; City of Dublin; City of Eastvale; City of El Centro; *City of Emeryville; City of Fontana; City of Fountain Valley; City of Fremont; *City of Fullerton; *City of Hayward; City of Hermosa Beach; *City of Huntington Beach; City of Indian Wells; *City of La Habra; City of Lafayette; City of Laguna Beach; City of Laguna Hills; City of Lake Elsinore; City of Lake Forest; City of Lakeport; City of Lakewood; City of Lodi; City of Long Beach; City of Los Alamitos; City of Manteca; City of Mission Viejo; City of Moreno Valley; City of Murrieta; City of National City; City of Nevada City; City of Norwalk; *City of Palos Verdes Estates; City of Piedmont; *City of Pismo Beach; City of Placentia; *City of Point Arena; City of Rancho Cordova; City of Rancho Cucamonga; City of Rancho Palos Verdes; City of Riverside; City of Rocklin; City of Roseville; *City of San Leandro; *City of San Marcos; *City of Santa Ana; City of Santa Clara; City of Santa Monica; City of Santee; *City of Sunnyvale; City of Thousand Oaks; City of Torrance; *City of Tulare; City of Union City; *City of Ventura; City of Vista; City of West Hollywood; City of Whittier; County of Kern; County of Santa Cruz; Ecological Options Network; EMF Safety Network; Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce; League of California Cities; Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers; Northern California Power Agency; Protect our Local Streets Coalition; Rural County Representatives of California; Scientists for Wired Technology; Town of Danville; Town of Hillsborough; TURN; Urban Counties of California; *Ventura Council of Governments; Wireless Radiation Alert Network; Several Individuals.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
Senator Ben Hueso, Chair
2017 - 2018 Regular
Bill No: Hearing Date: 4/4/2017
Author: | |||
Version: | As Amended | ||
Urgency: | Fiscal: | ||
Consultant: | |||
SUBJECT:
DIGEST: This bill establishes a statewide framework for streamlining the permitting siting process of small cell wireless facilities that meet specified requirements. Specifically, this bill requires an administrative permit in lieu of a discretionary permit, requires cost-based fees in lieu of market pricing, and ensures access to most host infrastructure in the utility right-of-way and also within a commercial or industrial zone. This bill also requires permits for wireless telecommunications facilities would be automatically renewed for equivalent durations, as specified.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes specified limitations, preemptions and preservation of local zoning authority in relation to the siting of personal wireless service facilities as part of the many provisions of the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996.
- Provides that except as noted in the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996, nothing in the Act shall limit or affect the authority of a state or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
- Establishes that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof – (i) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionality equivalent services; and (ii) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
- Establishes that a state or local government shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
- Requires that any decision by a state or local government to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
- Provides that no state or local government may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the bases of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Allows any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a state or local government that is inconsistent with the FCC compliance requirements related to radio frequency emissions may petition the FCC for relief.
- Provides that any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a state or local government that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.
(47 United States Code §332)
- Limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by the city or county to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, as specified. (California Government Code §65850.6)
- Provides that no state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. (47 United States Code §253)
- Provides that a state or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such a tower or base station. (47 United States Code §1455 (a))
- Establishes a framework, process, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to investor-owned utility poles, providing the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish and enforce rates, terms and conditions for pole attachments. (Public Utilities Code §767.5)
- Establishes a framework, process, fees, and procedures governing the attachment of telecommunications facilities to municipal utility poles, providing for safety and reasonable terms and conditions. (Public Utilities Code §9510 et seq.)
- Provides that a wireless telecommunications collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies several requirements, as specified. (California Government Code §65850.6)
This bill:
- Makes findings and declarations regarding ensuring the communities across the state have access to the most advanced wireless communications technologies, reaffirms local governments’ historic authority with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siting and many other findings and declarations.
- Defines small cell as a wireless telecommunications facility using licensed or unlicensed spectrum whereby:
- Any individual antenna, excluding the associated equipment, is individually no more than three cubic feet in volume, and all antennas on the structure total no more than six cubic feet in volume, whether in a single array or separate.
- The associated equipment on pole structures does not exceed 21 cubic feet for poles that can support fewer than three providers or 28 cubic feet for pole collocations that can support at least three providers, or the associated equipment on non-pole structures does not exceed 28 cubic feet for collocations that can support fewer than three providers or 35 cubic feet for collocations that can support at least three providers.
- Exempts specified equipment from the calculations of a small cell, including: electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation box, grounding equipment, power transfer switch, cut-off switch, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services.
- Excludes communications infrastructure extending beyond the telecommunications demarcation box from the definition of small cell.
- Defines vertical infrastructure to mean all poles or similar facilities owned or controlled by a city or county that are in the public right-of-way or public utility easements and meant for, or used in whole in or in part for communications service, electric service, lighting, traffic control, signage, or similar functions.
- Establishes that a small cell is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies specified requirements
- Located in:
- the public right-of-way in any zone or
- in any zone that includes a commercial or industrial use.
- Complies with all applicable state and local health and safety regulations.
- Is not located on a fire department facility.
- Located in:
- Authorizes a city or county to require that small cell be approved pursuant to a single administrative permit provide that the permit is issued within the time frames required by state and federal law.
- Requires the administrative permit must be subject to the same requirements as similar construction projects applied in a nondiscretionary manner and submission of additional information showing that the small cell complies with the FCC’s regulations concerning radio frequency emissions.
- Prohibits an administrative permit from requirements to:
- Provide additional services, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, in-kind contributions such as reserving fiber, conduit, or pole space.
- Submission of any additional information other than required
- Limits on routine maintenance of the replacement of small cells with small cells.
- Regulation of any antennas mounted on cable strands.
- Prohibits a city or county from precluding the leasing or licensing of its vertical infrastructure located in public right-of-way or public utility easements, and requires the fees are cost-based, based on the FCC’s formula.
- Prohibits a city or county from unreasonably discriminating in the leasing or licensing of property not located in the public right-of-way.
- Requires that a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility is renewed for an equivalent duration as the initial permit, unless the city or county makes a finding that the wireless telecommunications facility does not comply with the codes and permit conditions applicable at the time the permit was initially approved.
- Finds and declares that small cells have a significant economic impact in California and are not a municipal affair but are a matter of statewide concern.
Background
Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of wireless devices in the marketplace, from cell phones, tablets, health monitors, and smart appliances. Satisfying the consumer demand for efficient and reliable wireless communications is largely dependent on infrastructure that has required a network of large macro cell towers (most over 200 feet tall). These large structures have dotted the landscape in various shapes and forms, from a very noticeable large antenna to something disguised as a palm tree.
Next Generation of Technology. Unlike larger macrocell large towers, small cells will need to be deployed at greater volumes in more concentrated areas. These smaller wireless facilities are about 40 feet tall and can augment the capacity of the wireless bandwidth of the macrocell towers. According to the sponsors of this bill, CTIA, the potential for next generation smaller wireless facility technology in the form of 5G network deployments will “likely offer mobile Internet speeds of more than 10 gigabits per second – roughly 100 times faster than current networks. Downloading feature-length movies could take less than five seconds with 5G, compared to as long as eight minutes with 4G LTE. Deployment of 5G technology is a key part of supporting the vast increase in bandwidth-hungry smart objects expected to come online in the decades that follow.” Unlike larger macrocell towers, small cells will need to be deployed at greater volumes in more concentrated areas.
Small Cell. According to the FCC, small cells are “low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network, typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Because these cells are significantly smaller in coverage area than traditional macrocells, networks that incorporate small-cell technology can reuse scarce wireless frequencies, thus greatly increasing spectral efficiency and data capacity within the network footprint.” A small cell can only work with a corresponding provider.
Federal Statutes. Section 332 (c)(7) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 largely preserves state and local authority over siting requirements of personal wireless service facilities with some limitations. These limitations include a requirement that the state and local entity are:
- not unreasonably discriminating among providers of functionally equivalent service;
- not prohibiting provision of service;
- acting within a reasonable time;
- denying requests in writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record; and
- not regulating based on effects of radiofrequency emissions if the facility complies with FCC rules.
Additionally, Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) provides, in part, that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” In both cases, the federal government largely preserved the authority of states and local governments to determine decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities, even as it largely preempts state and local regulation of wireless services.
FCC Rfforts to Streamline Siting Permitting. In its role in implementing the provisions of the federal statutes, the FCC has taken a strong interest in advancing the deployment of broadband infrastructure, including wireless infrastructure. FCC notable actions in this area include:
2009 Declaratory Ruling adopted in response to a petition by the wireless industry requesting clarification of the wireless communications provisions adopted in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The ruling addressed what constitutes a reasonable period of time after which an aggrieved applicant for a wireless facility may file suite asserting a failure to act by the local land use agency. In general, but with many exceptions, the presumptively reasonable time period is 90 days for collocations (attached to existing facility) and 150 days for new builds. These timeframes were upheld in a related court case, City of Arlington v. FCC.
Infrastructure Report and Order adopted by the FCC in October 2014 which adopted rules to implement and enforce Section 6409(a). In general, the rules addressed the facilities the section would apply to, how substantial changes to a facility would be defined, the review process and timeline, and other matters. These rules were affirmed in a related court case, Montgomery County v. FCC.
Section 6409(a) would apply to facilities for any FCC-authorized wireless communications service, antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to operation (distributed antenna systems, power supply, and backup power), on any structure built for sole or primary purpose of supporting antennas, or that houses base station equipment, and must have been approved under applicable state or local process.
Defines substantial change in physical dimensions as any of the following: increases height by more than 10 percent or 10 feet (20 feet for towers outside rights-of-way), protrudes more than 20 feet (most towers) or 6 feet (towers in rights-of-way, base stations), involves more than standard number of equipment cabinets (up to 4), or excavation/deployment is outside current site.
Establishes a review process and timeline that provides state/local may review to determine applicability of Section 6409(a), may require documents to review, 60-day time limit for review (may toll within first 30 days if incomplete application), after 60 days deemed granted upon applicant’s notification, and requires disputes are resolved in court.
Provides that building codes and non-discretionary structural and safety codes remain applicable and does not apply to municipality in proprietary capacity (city owns the property).
In addition to the above, the FCC has taken steps to streamline siting of wireless communications facilities through the changing the affect of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) on the siting of these facilities. Specifically, under the 2014 Infrastructure Report and Order, collocations were excluded from NEPA review under FCC rules, except for NHPA review and exposure to radio frequency emissions. Additionally, construction of poles and similar structures in rights-of-way were also excluded under defined conditions. The FCC facilitated the establishment of a Nationwide Collocation Agreement which excluded most collocations from NHPA review. Major exceptions included collocations on structures (other than macro cell wireless towers) that are over 45 years old, on historic properties, or in or near historic districts. The Infrastructure Report and Order adopted limited further exclusions for collocations of small facilities. The FCC committed to develop further exclusions through a program alternative under Advisory Council on Historic Preservation rules.
Additionally, in May 2016, the FCC hosted a day-long workshop on the topic of small cell and distributed antenna system deployment where the former Chair of the FCC under President Obama, Chair Wheeler, opened the workshop and stated that small cell deployment “is a national priority.” The workshop provided a venue to discuss some of the existing challenges and interests in further streamlining deployment and shared a few case studies, including the successes and challenges to deploy small cells in San Francisco in response to the Super Bowl 50. Subsequently to the workshop, the FCC sought public comment on several options for additional streamlining with a goal to develop and complete the process by fall of 2016. In late December 2016, the FCC formally invited public comment on streamlining deployment of small cell infrastructure by improving siting policies. The comment period was extended and is scheduled to close this week, on April 7, 2017.
FCC under President Trump. The current chair of the FCC under President Trump, Chair Pai, has also noted the importance of deploying broadband infrastructure, including wireless infrastructure. Just last week, on March 30, 2017, the FCC issued a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry to Accelerate Broadband Deployment “to commence an examination of the regulatory impediments to wireless network infrastructure investment deployment and how we [FCC] may remove or reduce such impediments.” All signs point to an FCC intent on completing this inquiry as expeditiously as possible, possibly as early as summer. At this juncture, it’s unclear how this bill might interact with any actions the FCC adopts.
Public Rights of Way. This bill includes language that acknowledges the need to adhere to existing health and safety requirements associated with attaching communications equipment on utility poles. However, the language in this bill can be strengthened to explicitly mention adherence to existing utility pole attachments requirements in rights of way, including those promulgated by the CPUC for investor-owned utilities (including those in General Orders 95 and 28) and those for municipally-owned utilities, including requirements adopted by AB 1027 (Buchanan, Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011). Both the CPUC for investor-owned utility poles and statute regarding municipally-owned poles, establishes weight limitations and cost-based fees associated with attaching equipment to utility poles. These standards must be maintained to ensure the public safety and ensure utilities are compensated appropriately. The author and committee may wish to amend this bill to reference the need to adhere to existing requirements of the CPUC for investor-owned and statute regarding utility pole attachments for municipally-owned utilities.
Cost-based Fees v. Market Price. In anticipation of deploying tens of thousands of small cells, the wireless providers’ propose to cap fees a local jurisdiction can assess when attaching to host infrastructure (including that owned by the locality) in order to reduce costs to for deployment of the technology. As noted above, utility poles require cost-based fees for any equipment that will be attached to the pole. These tend to be formula determined costs, depending on the size of the attachment, established over time via FCC, CPUC, statute, and municipal utility rules. This bill seeks to provide access to attach to other host infrastructure, not only utility poles, but including city-owned street lights, traffic signals and other city-owned properties. The wireless providers argue that fees can be quite varied by jurisdiction and may often be charged at the price the market can bear. The wireless providers suggest that some of the fees result in paying for services other than the costs associated with the attachment. Representatives for the cities and counties acknowledge the varied fees, but note they are the owners of their property and should be able to determine the fee based on their unique needs and costs.
Technology Neutrality? This bill addresses streamlining the permitting siting processes for deployment of small cells. As noted above, small cells are owned by the individual wireless phone service carriers who would each need to deploy their own small cells to augment their bandwidth capacity. It’s of note that the FCC, in many documents, combines both distributed antenna systems, whose ownership is not specific to a given provider, but requires working with a provider to utilize their spectrum radio frequency. Additionally, California Cable and Telecommunications Association (CCTA) has expressed concerns regarding their interests to included language related to their wireless technology, wifi, available as remote “hot spots” for their customers. CCTA has recently provided some amendments. The author and committee need more time to review with all stakeholders, including the CPUC which has recently ruled against CCTA for a wireless-related access, absent a specified certificate of public convenience and necessity. Should this bill move forward, the author has committed to continue engaging with CCTA to attempt to address their concerns.
Environmental Health Effects. A few of the commenters that oppose this bill have raised concerns regarding the health impacts from radio frequency/microwave radiation associated with wireless communications. These commenters present several studies, as well as a California Medical Association resolution supporting efforts to reevaluate microwave safety exposure and efforts to implement new safety exposure limits for wireless devices to a level that do not cause harm. While these comments raise very serious concerns, federal law, specifically the Telecommunications Act of 1996, limits the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions by states and local governments in so far as a proposed project is in compliance with FCC requirements. The law requires that any remedies for those projects that are out of compliance must be addressed by the FCC. This bill includes language requiring compliance with the FCC existing emissions requirements. However, those who oppose this bill out of concern for the health impacts of wireless technologies are not likely to be satisfied with the standards the FCC has established.
Local Land Use Concerns. The main thrust of this bill affects local land use decision-making. In establishing a statewide framework for small cell deployment, this bill establishes limitations on the process, procedures and abilities of local governments to site small cell facilities. As such, this bill is double-referred to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance which can better address issues related to local land use policy, including: changes to zoning, changes to the discretionary permitting process to a ministerial process, changes to fees associated with attachment on host infrastructure owned by local governments and in the right-of-way, aesthetic considerations and review, and other issues.
Double Referral. Should this bill be approved by this committee, it will be re-referred to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance for its consideration.
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 2788 (Gatto, 2016) included similar provisions as this bill. The bill was referred to this committee, but was never heard after being pulled from being heard by the author.
AB 57 (Quirk, Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015) provided that a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility is deemed approved if the city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within the reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the FCC, all required public notices have been provided regarding application, and the applicant has provided a notice to the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed.
AB 162 (Holden, 2013) would have prohibited a local government from denying an eligible facilities request, as defined, for a modification of an existing wireless telecommunications facility or structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the wireless telecommunications facility or structure, and would have required a local government to act on eligible facilities request within 90 days of receipt. The bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Local Government but was never heard.
AB 1027 (Buchanan, Chapter 580, Statutes of 2011) required local publicly owned electric utilities, including irrigation districts, to make appropriate space and capacity on and in their utility poles and support structures available for use by communication service providers.
SB 1627 (Kehoe, Chapter 676, Statutes of 2006) required that a city or county to administratively approve, through the issuance of a building permit or nondiscretionary permit issued by the planning department, an application for a collocation facility on or immediately adjacent to a wireless telecommunication facility that complies with specified state and local requirements for such projects. The bill expanded the definition of the term “development project” within the Permit Streamlining Act to include projects involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction for a wireless telecommunications facility. Additionally, SB 1627 prohibited a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility from being subject to a permit to operate.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
SUPPORT:
CTIA (Source) 59DaysOfCode American Indian Chamber of Commerce of CA Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association Asian Resources Inc. AT&T Berkeley Chamber of Commerce California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce California Friday Night Live Partnership California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce CA Manufacturers & Technology Association California Urban Partnership CALinnovates Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Carmel Valley Chamber of Commerce Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce Chinese American Association of Solano County Community Technology Network Concerned Citizens Community Involvement Congress of California Seniors Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy and Leadership Council on American-Islamic Relations, California Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Downtown San Diego Partnership Elderly Foundation El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce Eskaton Foundation Exceptional Parents Unlimited Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation Fresno Center for New Americans Fundacion Pro Joven Talento Salvadoreno Gateway Chambers Alliance Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce Greater Sacramento Urban League Hacker Lab Hispanic Heritage Foundation InBiz Latino-North County Hispanic Chamber Invictus Foundation Jobs and Housing Coalition Lake County Sheriff’s Office Latin Business Association Latino Council Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy Project Lifestyle Stroke Foundation | Lighthouse Counseling & Family Resource Center Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles Urban League Meeting of the Minds Monterey County Business Council National Assn of Advancement of Colored People National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Inglewood/South Bay National Association of Advancement of Colored People – Riverside National Association of Advancement of Colored People – San Diego National City Public Safety Foundation National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals – Sacramento National Latina Business Women Assn. of LA Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Oceanside Chamber of Commerce Orange County Business Council Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Organization of Chinese Americans Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce Sabio Enterprises Inc. Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Sacramento Metro Chamber Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps San Diego North Economic Development Council San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley Leadership Group Society for the Blind Solano Community College Educational Foundation South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce Southern CA Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California Sprint The East Los Angeles Community Union The Arc California Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce United Policyholders Urban Corps of San Diego County Verizon Veteran’s Association of North County Volunteers of America Southwest Women’s Intercultural Network |
CONCERN:
California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies
California Cable & Telecommunications Association
Frontier Communications
OPPOSITION:
American Planning Association CA Chapter of the American Planning Association California State Association of Counties City of Buena Park City of Chino Hills City of Citrus Heights City of Cloverdale City of Dublin City of Hayward City of Indian Wells City of Lafayette City of Laguna Beach Mayor City of Lakeport City of Lodi City of Murrieta City of National City City of Nevada City City of Norwalk City of Point Arena | City of Roseville City of Santa Clara City of Santee City of Thousand Oaks City of Vista EMF Safety Network Ecological Options Network League of California Cities Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers Northern California Power Agency Protect our Local Streets Coalition Rural County Representatives of California Scientists for Wired Technology Town of Danville Town of Hillsborough Urban Counties of California An Individual |
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsors of this bill, CTIA, “In many California localities, the rules, regulations, and application fees for wireless infrastructure are decades old, put in place when 200-foot tall cell towers were the norm. These rules are barriers to meeting today’s wireless demand and enabling 5G innovations.”
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The majority of the arguments against the bill are reflected in the letter from the League of Cities which opposes the limitations this bill imposes on decision-making of local jurisdictions on permit siting, including concerns regarding the limitations on the assessment of fees on use of city and county property, the limitations on local discretionary review, imposition of zoning changes, concern that more than one antenna would be sited on a host infrastructure (pole) and an overall belief that this bill “strips the local governments of the ability to protect the quality of life of their residents.” As noted above, some opposition stems from the growth of radio frequency which would increase near homes under this bill. The opposition from NCPA requests clarification that municipal utility poles are still subject to existing requirements relative to the involvement of the municipal utility.
-- END --
Discussed in Hearing
Senate Floor
Assembly Floor
Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations
Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations
Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance
Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government
Senate Floor
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):